Hadnot v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11805.) |
| Citation | 7 S.W.2d 566 |
| Parties | HADNOT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; V. H. Stark, Judge.
Allen Hadnot was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Adams & Hamilton and A. T. Blackshear, all of Jasper, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Offense, murder; penalty, 25 years in the penitentiary.
The actors in this tragedy were all negroes. According to the state's theory, amply supported by evidence, a controversy arose in deceased's place of business over a domino game. Deceased was followed out of the room by appellant and his two brothers, who chased him around the chicken house, caught him, and one of appellant's brothers hit him with a stick of stove wood, and he fell, whereupon appellant shot him. According to appellant's theory, deceased followed him to the house of appellant's stepfather, tried to get a shotgun, and told appellant he was going to kill him. The shotgun was taken away from deceased by appellant's stepfather, after which deceased said, "I will kill you, you s___ of a b___," and drew back with a piece of wood, and was fixing to hit him on the head when appellant shot him. He shot three times, hitting deceased once in the head. Deceased was bruised about the head as well as shot.
It is claimed by appellant that the court erred in refusing to charge on threats. The only threat shown to have been made was during the progress of the difficulty in the presence of appellant and directed to him. It is only necessary to charge the law of threats when the threats have been made antecedent to the difficulty, either in appellant's presence, or to third parties, when communicated to him prior to such difficulty. Hancock v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 9, 83 S. W. 696; Branch's P. C. § 2075. The court gave a charge on threats, and charged the jury to consider same along with the other evidence in the case bearing on the issue of self-defense. This was more than the appellant was entitled to.
It is further contended that the court should have charged on aggravated assault. Appellant admitted that he knew his pistol was loaded when he fired same, but says he did not intend to kill deceased. The weapon used by appellant was per se deadly, and the law presumes under such circumstances an intent to kill. Collins v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 72, 299 S. W. 403. The facts of this case did not raise the issue of aggravated assault.
According to the state's witnesses, one of appellant's brothers remarked during the difficulty that they, meaning the Hadnot brothers, were the only "tush hogs in the country." The district attorney, in some of his questions, referred to them as "James brothers." It is contended that this was a reference to them as outlaws and was prejudicially erroneous. The jury must have understood it as in the nature of a facetious remark, and we are not able to believe that appellant could have been injured by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...out that the rule here announced appears to be different where death results and the prosecution is for murder. See Hadnot v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 7 S.W.2d 566; Barr v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 178, 172 S.W.2d 322.' See also Stills v. State, 492 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). If this is a v......
-
Ruiz v. State
...the victim, there is no need to give a charge on specific intent to kill or aggravated assault. Art. 45, V.A.P.C.; 1 Hadnot v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 7 S.W.2d 566 (1928); Barr v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 178, 172 S.W.2d 322 (1943); Smith v. State, 411 S.W.2d 548 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Schulz v. ......
-
Watts v. State, 23710.
...out that the rule here announced appears to be different where death results and the prosecution is for murder. See Hadnot v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 109, 7 S.W.2d 566; Barr v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 178, 172 S.W.2d Art. 1028, P.C.1911, as it existed prior to 1925, read as follows: "Test on tria......
-
State v. Crawford, 62852
...review the point, however, to determine whether the ruling constituted plain error under Rule 29.12(b), V.A.M.R. In Hadnot v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 410, 7 S.W.2d 566 (1928), defendant and his two brothers engaged in a series of acts resulting in the death of a person. In the trial of a murde......