Lott v. State
| Decision Date | 26 October 1910 |
| Citation | 131 S.W. 553 |
| Parties | LOTT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Bowie County; R. W. Simpson, Judge.
Henry Lott was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Geo. W. Johnson, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted for murder, and his trial resulted in a conviction of murder in the first degree with a life sentence in the penitentiary.
The indictment charged that appellant, in the county of Bowie, state of Texas, on the 12th day of June, 1909, did kill and murder William Temple by cutting him with a razor, or with some sharp instrument, and by choking said Temple and by striking him with some instrument to the grand jurors unknown, and by setting fire to the house in which the said Temple then and there was, and burning the said William Temple up. A summary of the testimony discloses that the said William Temple was a bachelor and lived in what is called in the statement of facts the "bottom in north of Hooks." He was a tolerably old man and lived on Mr. Barrow's farm. The appellant, Lott, lived but a short distance from Temple's house, and the state's witness Stature lived in about a quarter of a mile of Temple. Mr. Nicholas Barrow and his wife lived in the house with Temple. On Thursday before the house was burned on Saturday, Mr. Barrow and his wife left home and went off several miles visiting his mother. He left Temple at home and never saw him any more after he left on Thursday and was at his mother's on the night the house burned. Temple was seen on Saturday about 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon before the house burned on Saturday night. The house was a two-story house, and the deceased usually slept upstairs over the front part of the lower story of the house. There was a shedroom in the back of the house. On Sunday morning after the house burned, parties went to the place and found the charred remains of a person, the head entirely burned off, and the legs burned off up to the knees, and the arms were burned away. However, there was enough of the remains found for the doctor to be able to say positively that the remains were those of a human being and those of a male and a grown man. The house was entirely consumed, and these human remains were found, not on the ground directly under the room in which the deceased generally slept, but were found where the shedroom was. About where the remains lay, and right about where the neck and head of the party would have been, was found a lot of burned blood. This burned matter was examined by a physician and pronounced to be unquestionably blood. The witness Barrow testified that he had on the place six razors. He located where these razors were usually kept. None of them were kept in this shedroom where the body was found. In about a foot of where the body lay there was found the blade of a razor. The witness Barrow further testified that he kept a can of oil, and that it usually set out on the front porch close to the end of the gallery; that he discovered, after the house was burned, this oil can, but it had been burned in the fire, the tin being left which showed what it was, and that this oil can, when he left, contained oil. The witness further testified that he found some keys near the bed 10 feet from the body and they were the crib keys witness had given deceased on Thursday before; also was found near the bed buckles that came off the pants. There was no other evidence of identification other than what is above set out. The appellant in this case, together with one of the state's witnesses, Stature, and another party by the name of Brunson, were all arrested for this offense.
The appellant in this case made two written confessions in regard to the matter. The first confession was that he was present at the time the house burned and on the night it burned; that he had been invited by Brunson to go with him to Stature's house that night to gamble with the boys; that he went there with Brunson and nobody came, and they started to go home, when Brunson suggested that they go up to Temple's house and get some whisky and his money, when, he claims, he refused to do it, and one of them threw his gun on him and told him he had to go; and that he went and stood in the potato patch and saw them set fire to the house and burn it up, and when they started home they told him they would kill him if he ever told it. In about six hours after he made this confession, he made another confession, and in the latter confession he stated that Stature and Brunson got $105 in greenbacks from William Temple that night out of a trunk at his house; that they also got some groceries and gave the defendant some of them; that they broke into the house at the back door; that Temple did not wake up while they were robbing the house; that they had him to go out on the front gallery to watch and let them know if any one came near; that Stature suggested that they kill Temple after they had robbed the trunk; that he suggested this after they had robbed him of his money and gave as the reason that everybody around there knew he was drunk and would think that he got up to cook him something to eat and had set himself on fire, and Brunson then spoke up and said he would kill him, and appellant, continuing, said: The state used the witness Stature as a witness as well as his wife. He lived in about a quarter of a mile of the deceased, and he testified that about 9 o'clock Saturday night the appellant, in company with Brunson, came to his house and sat and talked awhile and left, going in the direction of where Temple lived; that he and his wife went to bed; and that they were aroused about 11:30 and saw this house on fire, but did not go down there. Stature's wife testified to the same state of facts; both disclaiming any knowledge either of the murder and setting fire to the house or who did it.
The court in its charge to the jury gave a full charge upon all the issues raised. He charged the jury that, if they found the witness Stature was an accomplice, his testimony would have to be corroborated. He also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...80 Id. 396; 67 Id. 514; 53 Id. 96. 5. The corpus delicti was not established. 34 Ark. 720, 743-4-6-7; 1 Wharton, Cr. Law, § 346 et seq.; 131 S.W. 553. 6. State failed to prove the allegation that the real name of the infant was unknown to the grand jury. It was material. 38 Ark. 637; 13 Id.......
-
Gribble v. State
...significant body of case law from this Court, appearing sporadically over the years, is to the contrary. See, e.g., Lott v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 131 S.W. 553, 555 (1910); Black v. State, 137 Tex.Cr.R. 173, 128 S.W.2d 406, 409 (1939); Franklin v. State, 140 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 144 S.W.2d 581 ......
-
Damian v. State
...the common-law rule that an extrajudicial confession is insufficient to support a conviction absent corroboration. Lott v. State, 60 Tex.Crim. 162, 131 S.W. 553 (1910). In this state, "the rule has been construed to require independent evidence of the corpus delicti." Gribble v. State, 808 ......
-
Clemments v. State
...support a conviction absent corroboration. See Fisher v. State, 851 S.W.2d 298, 302-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc); Lott v. State, 131 S.W. 553, 555 (Tex. 1910); Bordman v. State, 56 S.W.3d 63, 71 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd). The corpus delicti rule is a common la......