Kizzee v. State, 29740
| Decision Date | 30 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29740,29740 |
| Citation | 312 S.W.2d 661,166 Tex.Crim. 191 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Norman KIZZEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Mac L. Bennett, Jr., Normangee, for appellant.
Bryan F. Russ, County Atty., Hearne, Parten & Parten, Sp. Pros., Franklin, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, death.
Deceased's body was discovered on his kitchen floor on Saturday morning. His head had been beaten with a metallic object, which injuries caused his death. That night, the appellant sold a watch to the witness Littlefield which was identified as belonging to the deceased. Early Sunday morning, the appellant was arrested and told the sheriff where the hammer which he had used to kill the deceased might be found and where he had hidden the fob from deceased's watch. The sheriff recovered both items, and the appellant later made a confession in writing in which he related how he had gone to deceased's home for the purpose of collecting $2 and how he had killed the deceased by striking him on the head with a hammer because the deceased told him he didn't have 'no damn $2.00.'
The sole defense was that of insanity, and this was made out by appellant's monther and father, who testified that they did not think that the appellant had ever had good sense, and a school teacher, who testified that while in school the appellant didn't act normal and 'was a little strange at times and moody and seemed to like to be by himself at times.'
The State called eight witnesses, among them being his former employers, who testified that in their opinion the appellant was sane.
The jury resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find it sufficient to support their verdict.
We shall discuss the contentions advanced by appellant's eminent court-appointed counsel in brief and argument.
Bill of exception No. 2 recites that on September 23 an affidavit of insanity was presented to the trial court requesting a preliminary trial on the issue of insanity and that such request was denied, and the appellant was then placed on trial. Appellant would have us hold that reversible error is reflected by the bill because the trial court failed to qualify the same, whereas the record before us reflects that a preliminary hearing on appellant's sanity was had on the same affidavit in the same court on September 10, just 13 days before the main trial, which resulted in a finding by a jury that the appellant was sane. We are familiar with the prior holdings of this Court to the effect that, where there is a conflict between the bills of exception and the statement of facts, the bills must prevail; but we are aware of no conflict in the case before us here. In Wheeler v. State, 212 S.W.2d 169, this Court was presented this same contention and held that, where the bill failed to set forth the full facts, the record was available to this Court so that the Court might ascertain them. When the appellant was accorded a preliminary trial on the question of his sanity on September 10, the trial court was not required to grant him another on September 23. The issue of his sanity was again submitted to the jury on the trial on the merits which commenced on that day.
Bills of exception Nos. 3 and 4 relate to the failure of the court to grant appellant's motion for change of venue.
On the merits, we observe that the voir dire examination of the veniremen has not been brought forward to this Court, and there is a complete absence of any showing that any prejudice against the appellant, if any existed, found its way into the jury box at his trial. McCarley v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 263, 276 S.W.2d 300, 302, and cases there cited. In McCarley, we said:
'Irrespective of the amount of news coverage the crime may receive, unless such a showing is made, this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States are reluctant to reverse a conviction upon a failure to change venue.'
See also Williams v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 283 S.W.2d 239.
Prior to announcement and in connection with the motion, the appellant called 36 veniremen as witnesses, and the court refused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dietz
...113 N.E. 811, 813-14 (1916); Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 178 Pa.Super. 434, 444-45, 115 A.2d 826, 831 (1955); Kizzee v. State, 166 Tex.Crim. 191, 194, 312 S.W.2d 661, 664 (1958). Other physical evidence containing incriminating admissions have also been permitted entry into the jury room. Peo......
-
Williams v. State
...224 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1985, pet. ref'd)). See also Bush v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 54, 353 S.W.2d 855, 858 (1962); Kizzee v. State, 166 Tex.Crim. 191, 312 S.W.2d 661, 663 (1958); O'Neil v. State, 642 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no Where a defendant has been found compe......
-
Phillips v. State
...of venue. See Tyler v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 293 S.W.2d 775; McCarley v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 263, 276 S.W.2d 300; Kizzee v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 312 S.W.2d 661, and cases cited; Slater v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 317 S.W.2d Appellant complains that her motion for new trial based upon the rec......
-
Taylor v. State
...the accused found its way into the jury box at his trial. See also Lopez v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 252 S.W.2d 701; Kizzee v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 191, 312 S.W.2d 661; Slater v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 606, 317 s.W.2d 203. After a careful examination of the facts and circumstances and procedu......