Crews v. State

• Decision Date: 01 June 1895
• Citation: 31 S.W. 373
• Parties: CREWS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

31 S.W. 373

CREWS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Denton county; D. E. Barrett, Judge.

J. Q. A. Crews was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

Lobdell & Greenlee, for appellant. Mann Trice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

The appellant in this case was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death, and from the judgment of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal.

In order that the questions raised by the assignments of error may be properly discussed, we will briefly state the substance of the evidence in the case. The evidence in this case for the state shows that the defendant and his wife, a short time previous to the homicide, lived on a farm of the deceased, on Red river, in Cooke county. Said farm seems to have been under the supervision of a couple of sons of the deceased. The defendant was there in the capacity of an employé. Some difference occurred between the defendant and sons of deceased; and, about 10 days before the homicide, deceased went from his home place, which was situated some 8 or 10 miles from his farm, down to his farm, to bring a load of corn home, and, while there, endeavored to adjust the difficulty between his sons and defendant, but failed to do so. The defendant and his wife moved off the place to Montague county. On the day before the killing, defendant left his home carrying a pistol with him, but not stating where he was going. He came to Gainsville, and there borrowed a gun from one Stapleton, stating that he wanted it to kill some turkeys. The gun was a Winchester rifle. Where he stayed that night the record does not inform us, but early next morning the evidence shows that he was at the home of deceased, near Calisburg, in Cooke county, some miles from Gainsville. Deceased, with his wife and a minor son, were the only persons living at this place. Early on the morning of the 12th of April, as was his custom, deceased got up and went to his barn, near by, for the purpose of feeding his horse. What occurred at this juncture is best stated in the language of the witnesses. Jesse Murrell, the minor son of the deceased, states: "My father and mother had gotten up before me, and gone out of the room. Just as I was getting up, I heard two shots fired. I thought they were at the barn. I could see the barn from the north porch. I ran out on the north porch. Just as I got out where I could see the barn, I heard my mother's voice crying out, "Don't, Crews, don't!" Immediately two more shots were fired in rapid succession in the barn. I saw no one about the barn at the time. I at once ran to Mr. Walter Clement's house, which is about three hundred yards northwest from our house. I found Mr. Reagan Clements as well as Mr. Walter Clements there. We at once returned to the barn. When we got there, we found my father lying at the door of the barn, with his body about halfway in the barn, his feet being in the barn and his head outside. He was lying nearly on his back, kind of raising his head up on his hands. My mother was dead, lying further in the barn than my father, with her head in nearly the opposite direction from his. My father was not dead. He was able to talk, and appeared to know what he was saying. He said he was going to die. Mr. Reagan Clements walked up to my father, and spoke to him, and said, "Tom, who did this?" My father replied, "Crews, Crews, Crews." The feed basket, which we used to carry corn from the crib to the barn, was near my father's side, about half full of corn. In it, and on top of the corn, I saw my father's pocketbook, opened. I knew it was his pocketbook. It was a leather pocketbook, which closed with a strap. The pocketbook was open, and no money in it. When I picked it up, he said, "Yes, Crews robbed me, and got on old Joe, and is gone." My father lived about three-quarters of an hour after he was shot. He was moved into the house before he died." His testimony was corroborated as to what occurred after they got back to the barn by the two Clementses. The defendant was not there when they got back. The horse Joe, of deceased, and his saddle, were gone. There is testimony of another witness, who lived some few miles from deceased's house, towards the river, that a half hour after sunup he saw defendant on the horse Joe, riding in a gallop towards the river. It was also shown that in a corner of the barn, where hay had been stored, the hay had been pressed down, and a hole made, as if some one had been standing there for some time; and from such position the defendant would have a view of persons approaching the barn. It was further in testimony that the defendant, while he worked on deceased's place, was accustomed to wear a long beard that came down on his breast, but that when he came down on this occasion he had no beard. On the part of the defendant, it was shown by his wife that when deceased came down to the farm on the river, a week or ten days before the killing, to settle the dispute pending between defendant and the sons of the deceased, deceased made indecent proposals to her, which she declined, and that at one time, while they were in the cellar of the house, deceased, against her will, caught her, and kissed her on the cheek. The record shows that she informed her husband, after they had removed from the place, of this conduct of the deceased, and that this was the first time defendant and deceased met after he had been so informed of said insults towards his wife. The defendant also introduced some evidence of insanity in his family.

The appellant assigns as error the failure of the court to give a charge on circumstantial evidence. While it is true in this case that no witnesses testify that they saw the act of killing, yet the facts and circumstances of this case are of a character to place defendant in such...