Jones v. State
| Citation | 15 S.W. 403 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1890 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from district court, Milam county; J. N. HENDERSON, Judge.
E. L. Antony, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This conviction is for murder in the first degree, with the penalty assessed at death. Deceased had formerly lived with the defendant as his wife, but for some months prior to her death they had not lived together in that relation, but had disagreed and separated, and the defendant had been consorting with another woman. On the evening of February 13, 1890, she was last seen alive. On the 16th, three days thereafter, her dead body was found in a thicket. Her throat was cut from ear to ear with some sharp instrument. Her under lip was torn, and her front teeth were dislocated. At the place where her dead body was found were indications upon the ground that a struggle had taken place between her and her slayer. No witness testified to having seen the killing. It is a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances pointing strongly, and to our minds conclusively, to the defendant as the party who inflicted upon her the wound which caused her death. It is a case, however, in which the evidence presents not only the issue of murder in the first degree, but also the issues of murder in the second degree and of manslaughter. It appears from the evidence that the deceased went to the defendant's house; that from his house they traveled together several hundred yards, to where her dead body was found, walking side by side, as indicated by their tracks. As before stated, at the place where the body was found there were indications that a struggle between the parties had taken place. On the day after the discovery of the dead body it was noticed that one of the defendant's fingers had been wounded, the wounds presenting the appearance of having been inflicted by human teeth, as if the finger had been caught between the teeth and pulled or jerked out with great force. It was also proved that a coat belonging to the defendant was found in his house shortly after the homicide, very much torn. It was the theory of the state that the defendant had on this coat at the time of the homicide, and that it was torn by the deceased in her struggle with him. A homicide which results from a mere sudden, rash, and immediate design, springing from an inconsiderate impulse, passion, or excitement, however unjustifiable and unwarranted it may be, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Magers
... ... case, this does not extend to giving the law of apparent ... necessity, unless there was some proof of that fact, or an ... entire absence of proof as to how death was produced, and ... only circumstantial evidence relied upon to show the ... cause." In Jones v. State (Tex.App.) 15 S.W ... 403, a woman's dead body having been found in a thicket, ... with her throat cut, her underlip torn, and teeth dislocated, ... the plaintiff in error was indicted for killing her, and, ... upon trial, was convicted of murder in the first ... ...
-
Henry v. State
...don't shoot me any more!" And we gather from all the facts in the case that the killing was evidently the work of an assessin. In Jones v. State, 15 S. W. 403, this court reversed the case because of the failure of the court in that case to charge on any degree less than murder in the first......
- Glass v. State