Curry v. State, 25209
Decision Date | 21 March 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 25209,25209 |
Citation | 156 Tex.Crim. 379,242 S.W.2d 421 |
Parties | CURRY v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
William E. Davenport, San Angelo, Brooks, Duke, Templeton & Brooks, E. T. Brooks, Abilene, Justin A. Kever, San Angelo, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder without malice and assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.
The indictment in this cause is regular in form and the bills of exception cannot be appraised without a statement of facts. According to the transcript and the file mark of the district clerk on the statement of facts, this statement was not filed within the ninety days prescribed by law and for which period the trial court may extend the time for filing the statement of facts and bills of exception.
Appellant's attorneys have filed a motion asking this court to construe the filing date to be on December 15th, instead of January 9th. We are not empowered to hear evidence in such matters nor consider motions filed, unless there is admission of such facts as will justify the conclusion. The clerk of the district court has power to change his file mark if he has made a mistake; or a certificate from him that he had received the instrument within the proper time and had erroneously, thereafter, placed on it a different file date would be considered as an admission by the state. In such event we would be justified in receiving the statement of facts. In the state of the record, however, we are not permitted by law to consider the statement of facts in the case and cannot, for that reason, appraise the bills of exception.
The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing
WOODLEY, Commissioner.
The statement of facts is shown to have been in the hands of the clerk of the trial court for filing on December 15, 1950, and the date of filing has been corrected by the clerk to read December 15, 1950, instead of January 9, 1951. The statement of facts will therefore be considered.
In the absence of an order signed by the trial judge and entered of record extending the time for such filing, appellant's bills of exception cannot be considered, they not having been filed within 30 days after the motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal given (on October 9, 1950). The term at which trial was had was a special term which began on August 11, 1950, and under the order calling such term would terminate on January 1, 1951 at 10 A.M.
The indictment charged that appellant voluntarily and with malice aforethought killed Buddy Bailey 'by pounding and beating the said Buddy Bailey's head against the pavement of the street.'
We overrule appellant's contention that such allegation is vague and indefinite, and hold that the indictment is sufficient to apprise the accused of the charge against him and to put him upon notice of what the state would offer to prove.
Appellant, an oil field worker and former prize fighter, testified that he came into San Angelo looking for a job and, after visiting other bars, came to the Concho Bar about midnight where he first encountered the deceased.
Appellant and one Eddie Lawton sat down at the booth where the deceased was seated and the deceased, resenting their presence, requested the waitress to ask them to leave, which she did. An argument ensued and soon thereafter appellant and the deceased went outside and began to fight.
Appellant testified that he told the deceased that he didn't want to fight him or have any trouble with him and walked out the door; that as he got outside the door the deceased remarked 'You are going to fight me, you cowardly son of a bitch,' and hit him on the chin pretty hard; that he got up and fought the deceased for some 30 seconds; that during the fight he told the deceased 'I am choking to death,' to which the deceased replied 'That is what I aim to do.'
Appellant testified further that someone in the crowd said 'Stomp him, kick him, Buddy;' that he then got loose, fought for about a minute and finally hit and dazed the deceased, then hit him again and knocked him 'off the curb down on to the car and down to the sidewalk.' According to appellant's testimony and that of his witnesses, this ended the fight.
The state's witnesses gave a quite different version of the affair.
W. W. Pike, President and Manager of a local taxicab company, testified:
'When they fell off the curb I wouldn't know who hit the car first, but the one that hit first fell on to the pavement and he didn't move any more; only when he was pumping his head.'
Webb, the operator of the Concho Bar, testified in part:
Clyde Parnell, a salesman, also testified that appellant pounded the deceased's head against the pavement several times.
Dr. G. F. Madding, a surgeon practicing at San Angelo, testified that the deceased died a few hours after he was admitted to the hospital, the cause of his death being 'some form of external trauma.' He testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mays v. State
...not required when the injured party is about to make an attack or is doing some act preparatory to the attack. See also Curry v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 379, 242 S.W.2d 421; Herrera v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 175, 261 S.W.2d 706; McFarlane v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 658, 266 S.W.2d 133; and Johnson ......
-
Gonzales v. State
...attack was not called for where the evidence only showed that the deceased was preparing to make an attack. See also Curry v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 379, 242 S.W.2d 421. There is no showing in this record that the occupants of the Mustang were even preparing to attack appellant or his compani......
-
Leonard v. State, 31418
...serious bodily injury. The overruling of these objections was not error. Ayala v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 214 S.W.2d 634; Curry v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 379, 242 S.W.2d 421; Garza v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 105, 261 S.W.2d 575; Beverly v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 99 S.W.2d 925; Montes v. State, 16......
-
Lopez v. State, 27828
...on the defense of another against a milder attack was not raised. Boykin v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 13, 184 S.W.2d 289; Curry v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 379, 242 S.W.2d 421; Garza v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 105, 261 S.W.2d 575; Herrera v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 175, 261 S.W.2d The giving of the instru......