Heard v. State
| Decision Date | 26 October 1887 |
| Citation | 5 S.W. 846 |
| Parties | HEARD and another v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Harrison county; F. G. HAZLEWOOD, Judge.
The opinion states the nature and result of the trial.
In substance, the state proved that on the morning of August 27, 1886, the dead body of Kinney was found lying across the railroad track not far from the town of Longview, and that, upon investigation, it was disclosed that, although a train had passed over it, the death was caused by gunshot wounds which entered the back. A large number of witnesses testified that, subsequent to the burial of Kinney's body, they heard the two defendants say, in the course of a quarrel with one Bell, that they had "put twelve buckshot through Kinney, and wanted to get two more sons of b__hs, and did not care what in the hell happened afterwards." It was also proved for the state that, some time before the killing, Johnson Heard said that either he or the deceased would have to leave the place, or one or the other be killed. It was also shown that, prior to the killing, the deceased filed a criminal charge against Joe Heard, on which a warrant was issued, and placed in the hands of an officer. The defenses set up by each of the defendants was that one Jim Bell committed the murder; and alibi. Several witnesses located Joe Heard in the city of Marshall, and Johnson Heard at his mother's house, some miles distant from the place of the killing, throughout the night on which the murder occurred. It was proved by several witnesses that Bell was tried once for shooting through the house of the mother of the defendants, and one witness testified that Bell offered him $25 to testify that he heard the defendants say that they had put twelve buckshot through deceased. On rebuttal, one witness testified, for the state, that Joe Heard left Marshall in time to have reached the scene of the murder on the night it occurred, and Bell denied that he ever offered $25 or any other sum to suborn evidence.
Alex. Pope and W. H. Pope, for appellants. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This appeal is from a conviction of both appellants for the murder of A. H. Kinney, their step-father, the verdict and judgment being for murder in the first degree, with punishment in the penitentiary for life. But one bill of exceptions was saved at the trial, and that was as to the sufficiency of the charge of the court to the jury. Murder of the first degree was the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bloch v. State
...inculpatory fact, and a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required when proof of such admission is in evidence. Heard v. State, 24 Tex. App. 111, 5 S. W. 846; Smith v. State, 28 Tex. App. 315, 12 S. W. 1104; White v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 625, 25 S. W. 784; Hedrick v. State, 40 Tex. ......
-
Marshall v. State
... ... A jury at times cannot understand why certain testimony is excluded, and they resent at times the fact it is excluded, and if counsel is permitted to argue that, if they could have heard it, what it would have shown, they are likely to accept the statement of the prosecution as to what it would have shown, and give to such statement undue weight ... In this case the evidence discloses appellant had never met deceased, and knew no such man existed until summoned ... ...
-
Rowan v. State
...the killing, theft, robbery, etc., or state in full in statutory language that he did the thing essential to guilt. In Heard v. State, 24 Tex. App. 103, 5 S. W. 846, the accused said: "I put twelve buckshot through Kinney." In Smith v. State, 28 Tex. App. 309, 12 S. W. 1104, the accused sai......
-
Cantrell v. State
...described to her the manner in which he did so. This would remove the case from the domain of circumstantial evidence. Heard v. State, 24 Tex. App. 103, 111, 5 S. W. 846; Hedrick v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 532, 536, 51 S. W. 252; Thompson v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 217, 222, 26 S. W. 198; Kidwe......