Hawkins v. State
| Decision Date | 27 February 1889 |
| Citation | 11 S.W. 409 |
| Parties | HAWKINS <I>v.</I> STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Falls county; E. WILLIAMS, Judge.
Louis Hawkins was convicted of murder in the first degree, and moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, and he appeals. One of the grounds urged for a new trial was that one of the jurors who tried the case had made statements before the trial showing that he was prejudiced against the defendant. The juror filed a counter-affidavit, affirming that he had no recollection of making the statements; that, if he made them, he did it in jest; and that he tried the case without bias or prejudice, and solely on the evidence and the instructions of the court.
J. R. McDonald and W. Shelton, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This appeal is from a death penalty inflicted upon a conviction for murder of the first degree. Several questions are propounded by the bills of exception reserved for appellant during his trial.
1. One of the main witnesses for the prosecution was a boy 11 years old, and he was examined, at the instance of the defendant, with the purpose of testing his competency as to intelligence, and his understanding of the obligations of an oath. It appears that, after his examination by defendant's counsel, he was re-examined by the court, but the statement in the bill of exceptions gives us a very meager account of the extent of the examination. He seems to have known but little, if anything, about the obligations of an oath, but he knew that it was wrong to tell a lie, and that it was right to tell the truth. That portion of our statute relative to the matter announces as incompetent to testify in criminal actions "children or other persons who, after being examined by the court, appear not to possess sufficient intelligence to relate transactions with respect to which they are interrogated, or who do not understand the obligation of an oath." Code Crim. Proc. art. 730, subd. 2. As stated in the bill of exceptions, the objection made to the witness was that he "was incompetent to testify because of his youth and ignorance." It is not objected that he did not "understand the obligation of an oath." If that had been the objection, it might and perhaps could have been obviated then and there by a further examination, and, if necessary, by instruction given the witness under direction of the court. Taylor v. State, 22 Tex. App. 529, 3 S. W. Rep. 753; Holst's Case, 23 Tex. App. 1, 3 S. W. Rep. 757; Com. v. Lynes, 8 N. E. Rep. 408. The objections urged are solely as to his "youth and ignorance." There is no precise age under which a child is deemed incompetent to testify, but when under 14 years of age competency is determinable by an examination, and the action of the court thereon will not be revised, in the absence of a showing that its discretion was abused, and unless an abuse of discretion is apparent. Willson, Crim. St. § 2435. Objections, therefore, simply upon the ground of "youth," were no objections. As to the objection upon the ground of ignorance, suffice it to say that this witness' testimony, as detailed in the statement of facts, is as clear, circumstantial, positive, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lujan v. State
...no precise age under which a child is deemed incompetent. Douglass v. State, 73 Tex.Crim. 385, 165 S.W. 933 (1914); Hawkins v. State, 27 Tex.App. 273, 11 S.W. 409 (1889). See Wheeler v. United States, 159 U.S. 523, 16 S.Ct. 93, 40 L.Ed. 244 (1895), (51/2 year old boy); Clark v. State, supra......
-
Pruitt v. State, 8 Div. 692
...of age, competency is within the discretion of the trial court, and is to be determined by an examination of the child: Hawkins v. State, 27 Tex.App. 273, 11 S.W. 409; Hughes v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co., 65 Mich. 10, 31 N.W. 603. One may be competent as a witness at a second trial, though upo......
-
Hennington v. State
...She was able to give a connected relation of the facts within her knowledge. See Mason v. State, 2 Tex. App. 192; Hawkins v. State, 27 Tex. App. 273, 11 S. W. 409; Parker v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 111, 21 S. W. 604, 25 S. W. 967; Partin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 30 S. W. 1067; Munger v. State......
-
Hubbard v. State
...be revised, in the absence of a showing that its discretion was abused, and unless such abuse of discretion is apparent. Hawkins v. State, 27 Tex. App. 285, 11 S. W. 409; Parker v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 123, 21 S. W. 604, 25 S. W. 967; Taylor v. State, 22 Tex. App. 544, 3 S. W. 753, 58 Am. ......