Hackathorn v. State

Decision Date24 June 1964
Docket NumberNo. 36935,36935
Citation85 S.Ct. 1570,422 S.W.2d 920
PartiesCarl Junior HACKATHORN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Phil Burleson, Dallas, Robert Power, Irving, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., William F. Alexander, Frank Watts, A. D. Jim Bowie, Harryette Bercu, Ross Teeter and C. M. Turlington, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for murder; the punishment, death.

The testimony of the state shows that the appellant killed Bobbie Smith, a woman, by shooting her three times with a pistol above the left ear, the three bullets passing through and lodging in the right side of the brain, and causing her death instantaneously.

The appellant did not testify, but called his mother and a psychiatrist whose testimony supported his defense of insanity.

In rebuttal, the state called two doctors trained and experienced in the practice of psychiatry and four lay witnesses, all of whom expressed the opinion that the appellant was sane.

The jury resolved the issue of insanity against the appellant, and the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

It is insisted that the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a continuance on the ground of refusal of the state to timely and immediately comply with the order of the court of May 2, 1963, made in response to appellant's motion, directing the state to indorse on the indictment the names of its witnesses.

On May 3, the district attorney was notified of the order to list the state's witnesses on the indictment, but this was not done until shortly before the voir dire examination of the venire began on May 6. The introduction of evidence on the merits began on May 11.

The statutory provision (Art. 392, C.C.P.) that the names of the witnesses upon whose testimony the indictment is found shall be indorsed thereon has been held directory and not mandatory. 1 Branch 2d 511, Sec. 534; Ellisor v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 117, 282 S.W.2d 393; Newton v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 519, 287 S.W.2d 179. It is undisputed that the appellant killed the deceased. The only issue was that of appellant's insanity as hereinbefore shown. He supported this defense by the testimony of his mother and a psychiatrist, and in rebuttal the state called two psychiatrists and four lay witnesses. However, there is no showing that the indictment was found on the testimony of the witnesses testifying on the issue of insanity. Hence, no reversible error is shown. Cage v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 320 S.W.2d 364.

Error is urged because of the admission of testimony describing the bloody condition of the deceased's clothes, which were identified by an officer, while testifying, but the clothes were never shown to the jury.

The testimony consisted only of a narration of the facts by the officer as to his removing the deceased's clothing from her body, and after observing and identifying such clothing on the witness stand, he described their bloody condition. This evidence is distinguished from the rule which prohibits the introduction and actual display of bloody clothing of the deceased when not material to any issue in the case. The admission of the testimony shows no error. Williams v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Eads
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 8 Abril 1969
    ...State of a fair trial. State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 99 Ariz. 382, 409 P.2d 547, 548; Hackathorn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 920, 922; State v. Cardinale, La., 206 So.2d 510, 511; State v. Tackett, 78 N.M. 450, 432 P.2d 415, 418, 20 A.L.R.3d 1; People v. W......
  • United States ex rel. Clayton v. Mancusi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 13 Mayo 1971
    ... ... May 13, 1971.         Maurice Brill, New York City, for petitioner ...         Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, for respondent; Mortimer Sattler, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel ... 326 F. Supp. 1367          BARTELS, ... ...
  • Blyden v. Hogan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 Noviembre 1970
    ... ... Supp. 516 prosecutions were threatened, indeed that there was a clear state policy against prosecution under the statute, and that therefore no imminent harm faced the plaintiffs, the Court declined to issue a declaration as ... ...
  • Bell v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 21 Mayo 1969
    ...exempt from discovery. See Enriquez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 429 S.W.2d 141; Bryant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 320; Hackathorn v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 920; Sonderup v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 807; Smith v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 409, cert. den. 389 U.S. 822, 88......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Digital ecosystem of accountability
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-2, April 2022
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...are not required to furnish criminal defendants with certain information for pre-trial inspection. See, e.g. , Hackathorn v. State, 422 S.W.2d 920, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (failure of prosecution to provide accused with statements of witness, copies of reports, or his written statements ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT