Hathcock v. State
| Decision Date | 01 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11870.) |
| Parties | HATHCOCK v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bell County; E. M. Dodson, Judge.
O. G. Hathcock was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W. W. Hair, of Abilene, De Witt Bowmer, of Temple, and Jas. B. Hubbard, of Belton, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is manslaughter; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
We are considering the third appeal of this case. The first appeal is reported in 97 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 263 S. W. 587, and the second in 103 Tex. Cr. R. 518, 281 S. W. 859. The former trials resulted in a conviction for murder. On the present trial the court submitted charges covering murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and self-defense. We shall not attempt to detail the testimony, reference being made to the opinions delivered on former appeals.
The evidence on the part of appellant showed that in the beginning of the difficulty appellant acted in his necessary self-defense against an unlawful attack on the part of deceased. The testimony of the state showed that in the course of the difficulty appellant used excessive force and inflicted wounds upon deceased from which he thereafter died. Appellant's testimony was to the effect that he had no intention to kill deceased. Appellant excepted to the failure of the court to instruct the jury in substance that, if they believed from the evidence that deceased assaulted appellant in the beginning of the difficulty, and that thereafter appellant assaulted and cut deceased with no intention of killing him and in such assault used more force than was necessary to repel the attack of deceased, they would find appellant guilty of aggravated assault. It is contended that the court committed reversible error in refusing to so charge the jury. The court pointedly instructed the jury that, if they had a reasonable doubt that appellant made the assault on deceased with intent to kill him, he would only be guilty of an aggravated assault, unless the jury had a reasonable doubt that appellant acted in self-defense as defined in the charge, in which latter event they should acquit. The court properly defined appellant's right to defend against any unlawful violence on the part of deceased as well as the right to defend himself against an attack reasonably appearing to appellant to place him in danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury. We are constrained to hold that the court properly refused to amend the charge in the respect mentioned.
Complaint is made in many bills of exception of the action of the court in permitting state's witness McDonald to testify that deceased had guaranteed the payment of tuition fees due by pupils of the witness' singing school, and that deceased had paid him approximately $37 for those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trimmer v. State
...or by evidence which was not objected to, * * *." In support of the text many authorities are cited, among them being Hathcock v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 374, 16 S.W.2d 821. See also Lawler v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 460, 9 S.W.2d 259, and Scott v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 517, 105 S.W. 2d The judgme......