Christian v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1904 |
| Parties | CHRISTIAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wise County; J. W. Patterson, Judge.
Pete Christian was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Reversed.
R. E. Carswell and T. J. McMurray, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years and six months.
Appellant complains of the following portion of the charge of the court: "If you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, with a deadly weapon, or instrument reasonably calculated and likely to produce death by the mode and manner of its use, in a sudden transport of passion, aroused by adequate cause, as the same is herein explained, and not in defense of himself against an unlawful attack reasonably producing a rational fear or expectation of death or serious bodily injury," etc., "you will find defendant guilty of manslaughter." We do not think the word "rational," complained of by appellant, is more onerous upon him than the word "reasonable" would be. In fact, the word "rational," in the connection here used, is more favorable to appellant than the word "reasonable." A fear might be rational, and not reasonable. However, we note in a subsequent portion of the charge that the court in a very admirable way submits the issue of self-defense to the jury, charging that, if he had a reasonable doubt, etc.
After charging on self-defense, the court adds the following clause: "Unless you further believe from the evidence that the killing was done in a mutual combat between the defendant and Luke Sturdevant, as hereinafter charged upon." Appellant insists that this charge is erroneous, and cites us to Vann v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 813 and Drake v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 7. We do not believe the authorities go to the extent that appellant here insists upon. We hold that this clause is a bare reference by the court to a subsequent portion of the charge which the jury should revert to in passing upon the state of facts then under consideration.
Appellant excepted to the twenty-seventh paragraph of the charge of the court, which is as follows: "If you believe that defendant did kill Luke Sturdevant, and if you believe that a short time before the killing defendant and Sturdevant had some trouble, and if you believe that at the time of the killing defendant and Luke Sturdevant met in the road on horseback, and if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that after some words they mutually dismounted for the purpose on the part of both of fighting, and if you believe that after so dismounting they mutually entered into a fight, then, if you so believe, you are charged that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jurko
...all right of self-defense. (Pratt v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 227, 96 S.W. 8; Franks v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 638, 88 S.W. 923; Christian v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 47, 79 S.W. 562.) The court in instruction No. 18 placed the burden of proving the issue of self-defense upon the defendant; the giving of s......
-
State v. Stansberry
... ... homicide, where it was not questioned that deceased was shot ... several times, and the character, condition, and location of ... the wounds were fully described, the exhibition to the jury ... of garments was error, because it threw no further light upon ... the case; and Christian v. State, 46 Tex.Crim. 47 ... (79 S.W. 562), that, on trial for homicide, the clothes of ... deceased are not admissible in evidence unless they ... illustrate and make pertinent some phase of the State's ... evidence ... What, ... in a sense, is the leading case on the ... ...
-
State v. Stansberry
...fully described, the exhibition to the jury of garments was error because it threw no further light upon the case, and Christian v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 47, 79 S. W. 562, that on trial for homicide the clothes of deceased are not admissible in evidence unless they illustrate and make perti......
-
State v. Churchill
...the clothing was clearly admissible as evidence, under the authorities cited by the appellant. 6 Enc. Ev. 672, 673; Christian v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 47, 79 S.W. 562. 'The clothing worn by the deceased at the time of shooting, and the gun with which the shooting was done, were admitted in ......