Holland v. State, 24041.
Decision Date | 05 January 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 24041.,24041. |
Citation | 216 S.W.2d 228 |
Parties | HOLLAND v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; Daniel A. Blair, Judge.
George Holland was convicted of murder and he appeals.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
W. J. Durham, of Dallas, and Dillard, Cooke & Dillard, of Lubbock, for appellant.
Lloyd Croslin, Dist. Atty., and E. G. Pharr, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Lubbock, and Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for murder, with the death penalty assessed.
The body of deceased (the sheriff of the county) was found lying on the ground on a vacant lot in what is known as the "Flats," in Ralls, Crosby County, by the undertaker. Five bullet wounds were on the body: three in the head, one through the shoulder and chest and one on the index finger of the left hand. The time the body was found is not fixed, further than as on the 2d day of August, 1947.
Deceased was last seen alive by the witness James, who operated a filling station located about a quarter of a mile east of the residence of appellant. James testified that deceased drove to his filling station about 9:15 p. m., August 2, 1947, and "left his car parked on the other side of the lot behind the building and walked off."
Lewis Flowers operated a cafe in the "Flats" and lived in a house south of the cafe. About eleven o'clock on the night of August 2, 1947, Flowers was in the cafe and heard a shot. He ran out to the porch, where he heard the report of and saw the flash from two other gun shots to the back or south of the cafe. Shortly thereafter, he saw appellant coming towards him from that direction, walking fast and holding his right hand up to his side. Flowers heard some one ask, "Is he shot?" to which appellant replied, "No, come on." Appellant walked around the house to where his car was parked and drove away. The witness Flowers further testified:
The body was that of deceased.
Witnesses who were visiting in the Flowers home at the time and nearby corroborated the fact of hearing some five or six gun shots and seeing the flashes and seeing appellant come from the direction thereof, get into his car, and drive away. Some of those witnesses saw a "shiny" object in appellant's hand at the time. Appellant was some hours thereafter arrested at Amarillo, Texas.
Appellant did not testify as a witness, nor did he offer any affirmative defensive testimony. It is insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The case was submitted to the jury upon circumstantial evidence.
The rule of law relative to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction is that it should appear not only that an offense, as charged, has been committed but there should also be proof, to a degree of certainty greater than a mere probability or strong suspicion, tending to establish that the party charged was the person who committed it or was a participant in its commission. There must be legal and competent evidence pertinently identifying the defendant with the transaction, constituting the offense charged against him. Branch's P. C., Sec. 1877, p. 1042.
Here, the facts show that the deceased came to his death as a result of a foul assassination at night. Appellant, with some "shiny" object in his hand, was seen to rapidly leave the place where the body was found and the flashes of the gun had been seen, and to get into his car and drive away, under circumstances evidencing flight and guilty knowledge. There is no suggestion of an outstanding hypothesis of the guilt of another, or of the innocence of the appellant. While it is true that no direct motive is shown for the killing, such, however, is not required to sustain a conviction for murder.
The facts are deemed to be sufficient to warrant the jury's conclusion of guilt. Appellant's contention to the contrary is overruled.
Was appellant unlawfully deprived of his bills of exception?
The record affirmatively reflects that at the time notice of appeal was given, appellant made no request for an extension of the statutory time within which to file his bills of exception in the trial court.
Under the provisions of Art. 760, C. C. P., appellant had thirty days within which to have approved and to file his bills of exception in the trial court.
Twenty-five days after the expiration of the thirty days mentioned, or fifty-five days after the date notice of appeal was given, appellant presented to the trial judge for approval his bills of exception. The time for filing bills of exception had, at that time, long expired.
The trial judge refused to approve the bills. His reason for so doing is shown by the following certificate, which is attached to each bill, viz.:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodriguez v. State
...proved in order to establish the commission of the offense. Jones v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 345, 220 S.W.2d 156 (1949); Holland v. State, 216 S.W.2d 228 (Tex.Cr.App.1949); Arocha v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 391, 39 S.W.2d 1097 (1931); Ex parte Williams, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 111 S.W.2d 266 (1937); E......
-
Aguilar v. State
...S.W.2d 133; Beasley v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 346 S.W.2d 123. Motive is not essential in order for malice to exist. Holland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d 228. Appellant's second and third grounds of error are Appellant's fifth ground of error alleges that the trial court commented on......
-
Hughes v. State, 24250.
...of due diligence by him or in his behalf without fault on his part." See also Tex.Jur., Vol. 4, Sec. 187, page 262; Holland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d 228; and Pierson v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 177 S.W.2d It occurs to us that in the instant case appellant exercised that degree of d......
- Kessler v. State, 24223.