Mancil v. State, 37838
| Decision Date | 23 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 37838,37838 |
| Citation | 391 S.W.2d 731 |
| Parties | William M. MANCIL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joe H. Tonahill, Joe Bob Golden, Jasper, for appellant.
Floyd W. Addington, Dist. Atty., Jasper, Bill A. Martin, County Atty., Newton, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, 30 years.
Our prior opinion affirming the conviction is withdrawn.
The State's eye witness Hall on direct examination in describing the shooting testified as follows: At this juncture, the jury was retired and thereafter the State did not question Hall again about how the shooting had occurred in the presence of the jury. On cross examination in the absence of the jury, Hall stated repeatedly that the shooting was accidental and described fully his reasons for so believing.
The State thereafter did not disprove the accidental nature of the shooting.
In Stewart v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 194, 70 S.W.2d 714, the State's witness on direct examination testified that he had been shot by the accused accidentally; on cross examination he described fully facts which would demonstrate that it was in fact accidental. This Court, in reversing the conviction because of the insufficiency of the evidence said, 'The testimony of the injured party for whom the state vouched was directly to the point that he received his injuries from the accidental discharge of the gun.' Stewart is here controlling and calls for a reversal of this conviction.
The disposition of this cause renders it unnecessary for this Court to decide whether a number of inconsistent statements made by appellant and witness Hall, all of which were exculpatory, were sufficient to support a conviction.
Because the State's witness testified that the shooting was accidental and the State did not thereafter disprove such fact, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction and calls for a reversal of this conviction.
Appellant's motion for rehearing is granted; the judgment of affirmance is set aside and the cause is reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wall v. State, 40473
...thereafter disprove by Primary evidence such fact, thereby rendering the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. Mancil v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 391 S.W.2d 731. It is well established that even properly admitted impeaching testimony cannot be used as primary evidence. Lawhon v. State......
-
Sloan v. State, 39819
...The witness did not testify that the shooting was accidental, which, among other reasons, distinguishes the case from Mancil v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 391 S.W.2d 731, cited by appellant. The mere statement of the witness that 'The gun went off' does not, under all the facts and circumstances, ......
-
Morris v. State
...the present case the killing of Helen Morris by appellant was admitted, only the question of intent was at issue. He cites Mancil v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 391 S.W.2d 731. In that case the State's eye-witness testified to an accidental killing and it was not disproved, thus there was insuffici......