Gentry v. State

• Decision Date: 13 June 1888
• Citation: 8 S.W. 925
• Parties: GENTRY v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

8 S.W. 925

GENTRY v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

June 13, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Falls county; EUGENE WILLIAMS, Judge.

Indictment for larceny. Sam Gentry was convicted of stealing horses. The evidence proved the contemporaneous disappearance from the same neighborhood of the defendant, one Homer Smith, the two horses described in the indictment, and another horse, the property of one Morgan. The defendant and Smith were seen in possession of the horses on the night of the day that the said animals were missed, and were followed to a distant county by peace-officers, and arrested in possession of the horses, which they were then trying to sell. Smith, on arraignment, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a term in the penitentiary. The defense relied upon was the mental incapacity of the defendant to distinguish right from wrong. Upon that issue his father testified that defendant was mentally very weak; that his sister, older than he, was similarly afflicted, but that his younger brother was mentally quick and bright; that one of his maternal aunts was a mental nonentity or wreck; that defendant had no independent will of his own. W. H. Black, who was defendant's school-master, and who had boarded in defendant's father's family with the defendant, and saw defendant daily for a year, testified: "I would liken defendant's mind to a vessel of still water that did not move till it was moved. Defendant's mind moved only as it was moved. He did not seem to have any mind or thought of his own. In school he would sit for hours with his head bowed down on his knee, and, when I would get after him, he would straighten up and look, but would soon lapse back. I tried hard, but could teach him little or nothing. About the play-ground or at home he would rarely speak unless he was spoken to. Would do nothing till he was told. He was very obedient and trusting in those about him. When he had confidence in any one, he would believe any miraculous thing that was told him. Judging from what I know of him, I think, while under the influence of one he confided in, he would not know right from wrong. I mean, if told to commit a particular crime, he would not consider, know, or appreciate the nature or quality of the act, but would look solely to the fact that he was directed to do it, and would do it with the confidence that he would do an innocent act. I believe that it would not occur to him that he was doing wrong. I do not think he would steal if let alone. In this sense, he does not know right from wrong. Around the house he would do whatever he was told to do; attend stock, work in the field, and he seemed to do it well. He is about 17 years old, but has not the mind of an ordinary boy of 10." Defendant appeals.

Goodrich & Clarkson, for appel...