Hill v. State, 30121
Decision Date | 19 November 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 30121,30121 |
Citation | 319 S.W.2d 318,167 Tex.Crim. 229 |
Parties | H. V. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Aubrey Robison, Daingerfield, for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, two and one-half years.
Deceased sustained the fatal injury in a rural section of Morris County; only two witnesses were present, the appellant, who testified in his own behalf, and a colored man named Weaver, who testified for the State. All the parties had been drinking. Appellant's confession was introduced in evidence without objection; the jury resolved the issue of self defense against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict. The evidence will be set out more fully in our discussion of appellant's grounds for reversal as follows:
1. Prior to announcement, appellant filed a motion seeking to require the State to produce for his examination a written statement of the witness Weaver, allegedly in the hands of the prosecution, which motion was by the court refused. Reliance is had upon Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. Since the rendition of the opinion in Jencks, Congress has enacted Section 3500 of Title 18 U.S.C.A., which requires the production of any statement in the hands of the government after the witness has testified, under the penalty of having the witness's testimony stricken from the record or a mistrial ordered. Said section is not authority for pre-trial inspection of documents in the hands of the prosecution, and the holdings of this Court in Lopez v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 252 S.W.2d 701, and Rodriguez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 301 S.W.2d 921, dispose of appellant's contention in this regard.
2. Deputy Sheriff McCollum, a State's witness, was recalled by appellant and testified that the witness Weaver had given several different accounts of the homicide on the following morning. On cross-examination by the prosecution, the following occurred:
'Mr. Robison: We object to that, your Honor, that's a conclusion of the witness, as to whether that man was scared.
'Court: I overrule the objection.
'Mr. Robison: Note the exception.
'
'Mr. Robison: Your Honor, we object to that.
It will thus be seen that the trial court realized his error, immediately corrected it, and no injury is shown.
3. The appellant requested the giving of the following charge, 'That the pocket knife offered in evidence by the State herein is not of itself a Deadly Weapon,' and such request was refused. Reliance is had upon Dodd v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 26, 113 S.W.2d 540, 541. Dodd was an assault with intent to murder case, and no wounds were inflicted upon the injured party, and we said: 'Hence the rule that the nature of the wounds might be looked to in determining whether or not the weapon, in the manner of its use, was deadly has no application.' In the case at bar, the court instructed the jury on the necessity of finding that the appellant attacked the deceased with a deadly weapon with the specific intent to kill, on aggravated assault, and, in the case of a reasonable doubt, to find the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County
...dismissed 360 U.S. 473, 79 S.Ct. 1430, 3 L.Ed.2d 1531; Anderson v. State, 207 Tenn. 486, 341 S.W.2d 385 (1960); Hill v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 319 S.W.2d 318 (1958); State v. Lavallee, 122 Vt. 75, 163 A.2d 856 (1960); State ex rel. Byrne v. Circuit Court of Dane County, 16 Wis.2d 197, 11......
-
State v. Shouse
...of court expressly excepting from pre-trial discovery statements by the defendant or statements from others); Hill v. State, Ct.Cr.App.Tex.1958, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 319 S.W.2d 318.13 See the review of California decisions in People v. Cooper, 1960, 53 Cal.2d 755, 3 Cal.Rptr. 148, 349 P.2d 96......
-
Lopez v. State
...in determining the character of the weapon and the intent to kill." A similar charge was properly refused in Hill v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 229, 319 S.W.2d 318 (1958).3 Valenzuela testified he heard "people that were out in the hall" state appellant had a knife. Noll said he heard, "Look out,......
-
Floyd v. State, No. 4-05-00006-CR (TX 2/8/2006)
...requested instruction in the charge would rise to an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence. See Hill v. State, 167 Tex. Crim. 229, 319 S.W.2d 318, 319-20 (1958) (requested instruction that a pocketknife is not in itself a deadly weapon would have been a comment on the weight o......