Davis v. State
Decision Date | 02 April 1913 |
Citation | 155 S.W. 546 |
Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Mathew Davis was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
V. A. Collins, of Beaumont, and John L. Little, of Kountze, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at ten years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The only cause for the killing grew out of insulting remarks made to defendant's wife on Saturday morning. These remarks were communicated to defendant by his wife that night after they retired. The evidence of the defendant and his wife shows that he was nervous and restless and slept but little, if any, during the night. The next morning early, about sunrise, he secured a pistol and went to see deceased with reference to the matter. Deceased and his wife had spent Saturday night at the residence of their father-in-law, C. C. Burnett. Defendant and the deceased married sisters. Not a great while before the homicide, the home of deceased had burned and he and his wife were invited guests of appellant and his wife until they could build or secure them another home. Saturday morning the two sisters had some words. The deceased remarked to appellant if he would hold his wife he (deceased) would catch his wife and make them kiss and make up. The two men were friendly and there was no trouble between them about this matter. Deceased drank a cup of coffee and left the premises. The wife of deceased was on the gallery, and appellant's wife went out on the gallery, and, as deceased was leaving, she remarked to him, "Bud [his name being Bud Patterson], you derned fool, come back and get your breakfast." He remarked to her, "You go back in the house and shut your God damn mouth and keep your damn mouth shut; I am getting damn tired of it; I don't want any more." He was then standing at the front gate of appellant's yard. This is the testimony of the wife of appellant. The wife of deceased, Mrs. Lethia Patterson, testifies this way about it: This is the testimony of the two eyewitnesses to what occurred in reference to insulting conduct at that time. The wife of appellant conveyed her version of it to appellant that night upon retiring. On Sunday morning, about sunrise, appellant went to the house of Mr. Burnett and found Mr. Burnett and the deceased and his (appellant's) wife on the front gallery of Burnett's residence, and asked the deceased to walk out; that he wanted to talk with him. They went off something like 50 or 60 yards and engaged in a conversation. The witnesses did not hear all that was said between them.
Mr. Burnett testified that the parties went something like 60 yards from where he was sitting on the gallery. It was about 20 yards from the gate to the front gallery. He places Mrs. Patterson, widow of the deceased, on the gallery at the time. He says he was noticing them when they come to a stop; could not hear anything that was said; nothing more than the voices; they were talking low.
Park testified that he was in Burnett's house and did not know when appellant came in the yard.
The evidence shows that the parties were approaching the house at the time the shot was fired; Patterson a little diagonally in front of appellant. The shot entered the lower part of deceased's back, coming out in front just a little below the navel. A day or so later deceased died. In fact, the evidence shows he died on Tuesday. Mrs. Patterson denied calling the deceased a "derned fool" when he left the house that morning, and said she did not use that language. The defendant testified in his own behalf, after narrating the fact that deceased and his wife were guests of himself and wife and had been since the burning of their house, and the further fact that deceased did not spend Saturday night with him and his wife, but did spend it with their father-in-law Burnett. He testifies in regard to going to the house of his father-in-law the following morning to see deceased about his conduct towards his wife. He says that night after they laid down about 9 o'clock he had a conversation with her and she related to him what occurred, and the remarks made by deceased toward her. He said: "She said that, when she walked out on the gallery and told him to come to breakfast, he turned and told her to shut her God damned mouth; that he was tired of her bothering him, and he wasn't going to have any more of it; he would get out of her damned old house as quick as he could." This was the first information that was conveyed to him about the conduct. He says: He subsequently did find a pistol, put it in his bosom, and returned to his residence. He then went to Burnett's residence and met deceased's son who had just gotten up, and appellant asked him if his father was at home, and he said he was. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ross v. Cooper
... ... 883, 19 N.E. 453; Britton v. Washington Water Power ... Co., 59 Wash. 440, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 109, 140 Am. St ... Rep. 858, 110 P. 20; State v. Deuble, 74 Iowa 509, ... 38 N.W. 383; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v ... Haislup, 39 Ind.App. 394, 79 N.E. 1035; Waldele v ... New ... R. Co. v. Owens, 164 Ky. 557, 175 S.W. 1039; ... Grant v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 172 Mo.App ... 334, 157 S.W. 1016; Davis v. State, 70 Tex. Crim. Rep. 37, ... 155 S.W. 546 ... A ... declaration by a person made more than two minutes after the ... ...
-
Merka v. State
...arise from an adequate cause. If either of these requisites are wanting, an unlawful homicide cannot be manslaughter. In Davis v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 155 S. W. 546, this court, through Judge Davidson, "It may be laid down as an uncontroverted proposition that two things are requisite ......
-
Flanders v. State
... ... made on the day of the homicide were a part of the res ... gestae. ( State v. Nelson, 166 Mo. 191, 65 S.W. 749, ... 89 Am. St. Rep. 681; Diehl v. State (Ind.), 62 N.E ... 51; Flower v. State (Miss.), 37 So. 814; State ... v. Wright (Ia.), 84 N.W. 541; Davis v. State ... (Tex.), 155 S.W. 546.) It was prejudicial error to ... exclude the impeaching questions propounded to witness, ... Bothwell. (Jones Evidence, Sec. 843; United States v ... Knowlton, 13 N.W. 573.) The defense was entitled to show ... defendant's mental condition and general ... ...
-
Daniel v. State
...be manslaughter." Merka v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 550, 199 S.W. 1123, 1125 (1918). Earlier, writing for the Court in Davis v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 37, 155 S.W. 546 (1913) Presiding Judge Davidson had characterized as "an uncontroverted proposition" that if the two requisites coexist, "the homic......