Hunter v. State
Decision Date | 05 April 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 19909.,19909. |
Citation | 128 S.W.2d 1176 |
Parties | HUNTER v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Navarro County; Wayne R. Howell, Judge.
M. Hunter was convicted for murder and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. S. Callicutt, Lovett & Lovett, and W. D. Ralston, all of Corsicana, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Conviction is for murder, punishment assessed being five years in the penitentiary.
Appellant and deceased (Frank Murphy) had been neighbors for many years, living in the same community and only a short distance from each other. They had been friends prior to the homicide. Situated on Highway 75 a few miles south of Corsicana was a place called Allmon's Filling Station where both gasoline and beer were sold. The usual way traveled by appellant in going to said station as well as to Corsicana led by Murphy's house, from where the station could be seen. On the day of the killing appellant and Murphy met at the filling station. Each of them consumed several bottles of beer. They became involved in a silly argument over whether Murphy could beat a marble machine which was in operation at a night club situated a short distance from the station. The argument culminated in a fight between appellant and Murphy. In the fight or scuffle appellant fell or was knocked down. Allmon separated them and told them he couldn't have any fighting there and that one of them would have to leave. Appellant said he would go home. Allmon took him by the arm and went with him to appellant's car. At this point Allmon's testimony is that Appellant went home driving rapidly and was seen by witnesses at Murphy's house as appellant passed going in the direction of his own house. A few minutes after appellant left the filling station Murphy also left, riding with a neighbor to a point near his (Murphy's) home. A short time after Murphy reached his house appellant was seen coming back, driving not so rapidly as before when he passed Murphy's place. He was seen by parties at Murphy's to drive up to the filling station and get out of the car. He only remained at the station a few minutes when he again got in his car and went back towards Murphy's, which was also in the direction of his own home. Allmon's testimony was that when appellant came back to the filling station and witness first saw him he was in the driveway with a shotgun in his hand, and called twice for Murphy to came out; witness told appellant Murphy was not there, opened the door and told him to look. Appellant told witness to stand back out of the way, walked to the door and looked in. Appellant then started to leave and witness advised him "not to go down there like he was, he ought to wait until he sobered up and he would feel altogether different about it." Appellant made no reply but got in his car and left going towards home, but stopped at Murphy's. After appellant passed Murphy's going back towards the filling station Murphy got his pistol and buckled it on with the scabbard at his back so the pistol could not be seen from the front. Appellant had lost a radiator cap off his car as he drove by Murphy's some time in passing. Someone had picked it up and laid it on the back porch. The facts as related up to this point were established without controversy.
According to Mr. Allmon's testimony the fight between appellant and Murphy at the filling station amounted to little and no one got hurt to amount to anything. According to appellant's wife he was pretty considerably "bunged up" as a result of the fight.
The conflict in the testimony begins at the point where appellant stopped his car in front of Murphy's house. A sister and daughter of Murphy were eye-witnesses and their evidence is in accord to the following effect. When appellant stopped his car in front of the house he got out with the gun in his hand, having it out in front of him, and made two or three steps toward the house. Murphy went out the back door, picked up the radiator cap in his left hand and went towards appellant, offering to give him the radiator cap. When Murphy was within about fifteen steps of appellant, and having nothing in his hands but the radiator cap, appellant fired at him with the shotgun. Murphy then got his pistol from the holster and fired several times at appellant. Murphy then retreated to the rear of the house and was followed by appellant with his "gun up." One of the witnesses got between appellant and Murphy. After Murphy reached a point at the rear of the house appellant ran between him and the door, cutting him off from entering the house. Appellant then fired twice more at Murphy with the shotgun, it being one of the last two shots which killed him. A son of Murphy did not see the shots fired, but testified that a loud report first came from the front yard, followed by three not so loud, and then two more loud reports came from the rear of the house. Miss Kelly, a young lady 18 years of age, lived about 300 yards from Murphy's house, which she could see plainly. She saw appellant driving rapidly on the road going towards the filling station and then returning towards Murphy's. Her testimony follows:
Appellant did not testify. He put his defense into the case through a res gestae statement testified to by his wife. After the killing appellant did not leave the scene in his car but ran towards home on foot. His wife met him. He testified that appellant made to her the following statement.
Appellant called a number of witnesses who were so situated that they could see no part of the shooting but heard the reports of the guns. These witnesses testified that the first shots heard by them,— being three or more—were not so loud as shots coming afterwards, leaving the inference that the first group of shots were from a smaller gun,—Murphy's pistol—and the later shots from appellant's shotgun, thus supporting appellant's claim that Murphy fired first.
We have been at pains to set out the salient facts in some detail because in our view of the case only two questions require discussion, and each of them turns on the evidence.
At the request of the State the court gave the following special charge on abandonment of the difficulty by deceased:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martinez v. State
...S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Williams v. State, supra; Porter v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 540, 215 S.W.2d 889 (1948); Hunter v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 289, 128 S.W.2d 1176 (1939); Harris v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 426, 32 S.W.2d 459 (1930); Allen v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 278 S.W. 201 (1925); Fr......
-
Taylor v. State
...considered settled the propriety of charging the jury on the defendant's right to pursue his attacker. See Hunter v. State, 137 Tex.Crim. 289, 128 S.W.2d 1176, 1180 (1939). If raised by the evidence, such a charge must be given. See Thompson v. State, 101 Tex.Crim. 587, 276 S.W. 699, 702 (1......
-
Davis v. State
...necessity arises, continues as long as there is real or apparent danger, and ceases when the danger disappears." Hunter v. State, 128 S.W.2d 1176, 1179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1939). The record indicates that Davis initiated the altercation, and once he began to stab Goodman, Davis continued to us......
-
Banks v. State
...right to arm himself and seek an explanation or an amicable adjustment, we believe he was not entitled to one. Hunter v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 289, 128 S.W.2d 1176, 1181 (1939); see: Wilson v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 625, 224 S.W. 772, 775 (1920). A trial court is not required to instruct upon a......