Littleton v. State, No. 40051

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtMORRISON
Citation88 S.Ct. 115,419 S.W.2d 355
Decision Date25 January 1967
Docket NumberNo. 40051
PartiesMartin Steven LITTLETON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Page 355

419 S.W.2d 355
Martin Steven LITTLETON, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 40051.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 25, 1967.
Rehearing Denied March 8, 1967.
Certiorari Denied Oct. 9, 1967.
See 88 S.Ct. 115.

W.C. Shead, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Erwin G. Ernst, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder without malice; the punishment, three years.

Notice of appeal was given on January 29, 1965, but because of numerous extensions of time granted, the record did not reach this Court until November 30, 1966.

Since this appeal is controlled by Vernon's Ann.Code of Criminal Procedure in effect prior to January 1, 1966, a brief statement of the facts is required.

Appellant, 55 years of age, had been married to the 34 year old deceased for sixteen years. About a week prior to the homicide, appellant became suspicious that deceased was having an illicit relationship with one John Brooks, a 28 year old single man who rented and resided in a small house at the rear of his home. At dusk on the night of the homicide, deceased left with John Brooks and several very small children to go to a drive-in movie. Witnesses for the State said they went with appellant's knowledge and consent. Appellant testified that he did not know that Brooks was with the deceased until after they left. Appellant concealed his automobile so that it would appear that he was not at home. Brooks, the deceased and the sleeping children did not return home until 3:00 a.m. By this time appellant was considerably agitated and instead of confronting them and demanding an explanation, he absented himself from the house, but kept it under surveillance and repeatedly peeped through the windows. In the meantime he armed himself with a shot gun and when he saw what appeared to him to be two naked bodies close together in deceased's bedroom, he fired one shot through the window. It was shown that pellets from this blast hit both deceased and Brooks. Appellant then entered his home and fired

Page 357

two more shots in the dark. Both deceased and Brooks were killed instantly. In answer to appellant's call, the police arrived and found Brooks naked from the waist up in the bedroom and deceased clad only in her panties and a sweater in the same room.

This prosecution was for the slaying of appellant's wife. We find the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Maxwell v. Bishop, No. 18746.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 16, 1968
    ...based on Whitus, namely, Bostick v. South Carolina, 386 U.S. 479, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 18 L.Ed.2d 223 (1967); Cobb v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 12, 88 S.Ct. 115, 19 L.Ed.2d 11 (1967); Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24, 88 S.Ct. 4, 19 L.Ed.2d 25 (1967); Sims v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 404, 407-408, 88 S.Ct. 523, 19......
  • Bradshaw v. State, No. 63478
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • June 29, 1982
    ...the facts were correct. See Cobb v. State, 222 Ga. 733 (6), 152 S.E.2d 403 (1966), revd. on other grounds, Cobb v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 12, 88 S.Ct. 115, 19 L.Ed.2d 11 (1967); Harris v. State, 191 Ga. 243 (10), 12 S.E.2d 64 (1940). However, the witness did not read the statement into the recor......
  • Barber v. Page, No. 703
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1968
    ...the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, one judge dissenting, affirmed. 381 F.2d 479 (1966). We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 819, 88 S.Ct. 115, 19 L.Ed.2d 69 (1967), to consider petitioner's denial of confrontation claim, and we reverse. Many years ago this Court stated that '(t)he prim......
  • Williams v. State, No. 54730
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 21, 1978
    ...testimony and only the question of the defendant's intent is to be inferred from the circumstances. Littleton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 355; Helms v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 227; Chappell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 519 S.W.2d 453; Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 504 S.W.2d 862. Appel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Maxwell v. Bishop, No. 18746.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • December 16, 1968
    ...based on Whitus, namely, Bostick v. South Carolina, 386 U.S. 479, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 18 L.Ed.2d 223 (1967); Cobb v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 12, 88 S.Ct. 115, 19 L.Ed.2d 11 (1967); Jones v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 24, 88 S.Ct. 4, 19 L.Ed.2d 25 (1967); Sims v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 404, 407-408, 88 S.Ct. 523, 19......
  • Bradshaw v. State, No. 63478
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • June 29, 1982
    ...the facts were correct. See Cobb v. State, 222 Ga. 733 (6), 152 S.E.2d 403 (1966), revd. on other grounds, Cobb v. Georgia, 389 U.S. 12, 88 S.Ct. 115, 19 L.Ed.2d 11 (1967); Harris v. State, 191 Ga. 243 (10), 12 S.E.2d 64 (1940). However, the witness did not read the statement into the recor......
  • Barber v. Page, No. 703
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1968
    ...the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, one judge dissenting, affirmed. 381 F.2d 479 (1966). We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 819, 88 S.Ct. 115, 19 L.Ed.2d 69 (1967), to consider petitioner's denial of confrontation claim, and we reverse. Many years ago this Court stated that '(t)he prim......
  • Williams v. State, No. 54730
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 21, 1978
    ...testimony and only the question of the defendant's intent is to be inferred from the circumstances. Littleton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 419 S.W.2d 355; Helms v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 227; Chappell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 519 S.W.2d 453; Ross v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 504 S.W.2d 862. Appel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT