Maldonado v. State
Decision Date | 23 April 1913 |
Parties | MALDONADO et al. v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Brooks County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
Jose Garcia Maldonado and another were convicted of assault with intent to murder, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
J. T. Canales, of Brownsville, and E. C. Gaines, of Austin, for appellants. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellants were convicted of murder in the second degree; their punishment being assessed at two years' confinement each in the penitentiary.
On the 5th of May appellants Jose Garcia Maldonado and Pedro Garcia Maldonado were working as hands on the ranch of J. P. Reed. On the same ranch and at the same time Victoriano Garcia Maldonado, Jesus Lopez, Ramon Estrada, and a Mexican woman, Antonia Ramirez, were also employed on the ranch; the woman being the cook. She had a son with her ten years of age. These are all of the persons who were on the ranch at the time of the difficulty out of which grew this prosecution. The two defendants are brothers; Jose Garcia being older than Pedro. Victoriano Garcia Maldonado was brother of the two defendants, and Lopez their cousin. Ramon Estrada had been working upon the ranch for eleven years, and in the absence of Mr. Reed acted as foreman. Antonia Ramirez had been cook, residing on the ranch about two years. The two defendants and Victoriano Garcia Maldonado and Lopez had been upon the ranch about six months. Estrada is the alleged assaulted party. His testimony is to the effect that on Sunday evening about 4 o'clock Pedro returned from the Rendado. Estrada had loaned Pedro a horse to ride to the Rendado. Pedro upon his return inquired if there was anything in the house to eat. Estrada answered in the affirmative, and as they were going in the house, Jose Garcia, one of the defendants, remarked to Estrada he was a scoundrel, and that he (Jose) was going to kill a Mexican or American before he left there. There was a pistol lying on the sewing machine. Jose picked up the pistol and later fired at Estrada. The ball entered his hand and came out at or near the elbow. He further testified at the time the pistol was pointed at him Pedro caught his arm from behind and held him, and immediately after the shot the cook came in. This witness testified, also, that these Mexican boys had been working at the ranch together and that no friction or ill feeling or unkind words had occurred between himself and any of them. To use his express words, he says: This is substantially the state's case. Pedro, Jose, and Victoriano Garcia Maldonado, the only other witnesses who were present at the time of the trouble, also testified that no ill will had ever existed between any of them and Ramon Estrada. That on Sunday evening they were all leaving their meal with Jose in front; Victoriano next, then came Estrada with Pedro behind. A pistol belonging to Mr. Reed, the owner of the ranch, was lying on the end of a sewing machine standing in the door of a side room just off from the door where they were going out. Jose, the boy who had the pistol in his hand when it was fired, had seen a pistol but had never handled one, and out of curiosity picked this one up and was handling it, letting the hammer up and down, when the others came out with Victoriano in front, Ramon Estrada, the injured party, immediately behind him, Pedro bringing up the rear. When Pedro, the elder of the boys, saw Jose with the pistol, he told him to put it back; but Jose kept handling it, and in a moment it fired. The ball passed sufficiently close to Victoriano to scorch his clothes and powder burn his face; passing through the arm of Estrada, it struck Pedro in the face. When this occurred Victoriano took the pistol out of Jose's hand and put it up. Nothing was said by Jose at the time. Jose, testifying, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McPeak v. State
...S. W. 661; Williams v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 218, 75 S. W. 859; Miller v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 72, 105 S. W. 502; Maldonado v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 156 S. W. 647. Upon another trial the law of accidental homicide will be submitted in accordance with the statute unfettered and untramm......
-
Brown v. State, 14268.
...He supports this contention by citing the cases of Jenkins et al. v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 585, 155 S. W. 208, and Maldonado et al. v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 156 S. W. 647. The court charged the jury that, if they believed from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant......