Maddox v. State
Decision Date | 06 April 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 19625.,19625. |
Parties | MADDOX v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; Whit Boyd, Judge.
Carl Maddox was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
C. F. Stevens and Dick Young, both of Houston, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.
It was charged in the indictment in substance that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed James W. Turner by cutting and stabbing him with a knife.
Appellant worked at George's Hamburger Stand in the city of Houston. He had known Norma Tappen for some time and apparently was in love with her. About 3 a. m., August 30, 1936, deceased and Miss Tappen, accompanied by other couples, drove to the hamburger stand and ordered soda water. Upon seeing the deceased with Miss Tappen appellant went to the kitchen and procured a knife. Returning to the car in which the couples were seated, he made a remark to the deceased, which the witnesses were unable to understand. At this juncture, deceased left the car and engaged in a fist fight with appellant. During the progress of the fight appellant stabbed deceased in the abdomen. Companions of deceased immediately carried him to a hospital where he died a few hours later. The State introduced in evidence appellant's confession which, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows:
Testifying in his own behalf, appellant repudiated his confession and declared that he acted in self-defense at the time he inflicted the fatal wound. It was his version that deceased was preparing to attack him with a knife and that he cut the deceased, with no intent to kill him but only in an effort to stop him.
It is shown in two bills of exception that the State proved, over appellant's objection, that two or three hours before the homicide appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. State
...300 S.W. 57; Glover v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 605, 69 S.W.2d 136; Lawrence v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 416, 82 S.W.2d 647; Maddox v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 289, 115 S.W.2d 644; Mounts v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 185 S.W.2d 731. Appellant was entitled to be tried not as a criminal, generally, but u......
-
Van Sickle v. State
...in front of the jury. This portion of the scenario is right out of Smith v. State, 409 S.W.2d 409 (Tex.Cr.App.1966) and Maddox v. State, 115 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.Cr.App.1938).6 Can there be any doubt about the prosecutor's apprehension of the meaning and effect of the statement of counsel for ap......
-
State v. Moore
... ... entertains the opinion that the conduct of the defendant ... toward Morgan, as testified to by the latter, showed only ... that the defendant was an intemperate individual given to the ... utterance of threats of dire portent when aroused to anger ... (Maddox v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 289, 115 S.W.2d ... 644), and that such testimony did not tend to prove intent ... [78 N.E.2d 368.] ... or motive in connection with the killing of Hall ... Morgan's ... testimony as to collateral matters not relevant to the crime ... with which ... ...
-
State v. Strong
...the defendant was an intemperate individual given to the utterance of threats of dire portent when aroused to anger (Maddox v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 289, 115 S.W.2d 644), and that such testimony did not tend to prove intent or motive in connection with the killing of Hall. Morgan's testimony......