Fennell v. State
Decision Date | 06 March 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 40830,40830 |
Citation | 424 S.W.2d 631 |
Parties | Fred FENNELL, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ray Epps, John Cutler, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Joe S. Moss, James C. Brough, Wells Stewart and J. Robert Musslewhite, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
OPINION ON STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Our original opinion is withdrawn and the following is substituted in lieu thereof.
The offense is Murder without Malice; the punishment, assessed by the trial court after a verdict of guilty, five (5) years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
On original submission this cause was reversed and remanded on the grounds (1) that the facts were insufficient to show an unlawful killing and that the uncontroverted evidence established self-defense as a matter of law, and (2) that the appellant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial by reason of fundamental error which occurred despite the lack of objection when, under the circumstances, the trial court charged only abstractly on the law of self-defense and failed to apply the law to the facts.
On rehearing, upon further consideration, we have concluded that we were in error in holding that self-defense was established by the facts as a matter of law.
We remain convinced, however, that this cause must be reversed on the error in the court's charge. The testimony of the State and appellant clearly and strongly raised the issue of self-defense both against an unlawful attack giving rise to apprehension or fear of death or serious bodily injury (Articles 1221, 1226, V.A.P.C.) and against a milder attack (Article 1224 P.C.).
In our original opinion said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hernandez v. State
...v. State , 495 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) ; Mendoza v. State , 491 S.W.2d 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) ; and Fennell v. State , 424 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968) ). "Fundamental error is an error ‘calculated to injure the rights of the appellant to the extent that he has not had a ......
-
Doyle v. State
...from the one charged in the indictment. But, that is not the situation that existed in Harris. The second case is Fennell v. State, 424 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). On original submission in Fennell, the Court found that the evidence established self-defense as a matter of law. On rehearin......
-
Jones v. State
...deprives the defendant of "a fair and impartial trial." Harris v. State, 522 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), citing Fennell v. State, 424 S.W.2d 631 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). This type of error "in the charge goes to the very basis of the case so that the charge fails to state and apply the law......
-
Wilson v. State
...the defensive issues raised by the evidence, is a state-biased charge that is one-sided in its guidance to the jury. See, Fennell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 424 S.W.2d 631, in which the conviction was reversed for failure of the charge to apply the law to the facts on the issue of self-defense,......