Hall v. State

• Decision Date: 21 April 1894
• Citation: 26 S.W. 72
• Parties: HALL v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

26 S.W. 72

HALL v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 21, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Fayette county; H. Teichmuller, Judge.

Albert Hall was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. H. Ledbetter, for appellant. R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant's punishment was assessed at death under a conviction of murder in the first degree. He failed to reserve exceptions to any rulings of the court had upon the trial. In his motion for a new trial, it is contended by appellant that the court erred in instructing the jury that "the mind need not be absolutely calm, unruffled, or self-possessed." This is an excerpt from a sentence included in the court's definitions of malice, etc. Taken in connection with the remainder of the charge, it is in strict conformity with the law, as it has previously been understood and announced in this state. Farrer v. State, 42 Tex. 271; Duebbe v. State, 1 Tex. App. 159. The proposition announced by the court is correct. The definition of malice aforethought, as well as express and implied malice, are in strict conformity with law, and unobjectionable. The allegation of newly-discovered testimony contained in the motion for a new trial is totally unsupported by the affidavit of the defendant, his counsel, or the witness by whom the facts were expected to be shown. In fact, if the evidence is true, it tended to strengthen the theory of express malice, and its probative force was to show malice and motive for the killing. The evidence clearly proves a murder upon express malice. No error being disclosed, the judgment is affirmed.