Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 27 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 31918,31918 |
| Citation | 334 S.W.2d 796,169 Tex.Crim. 423 |
| Parties | Jimmie D. MARTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
T. B. Sisco, McKinney (court-appointed), for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is murder; the punishment, 5 years.
Appellant's confession, which was introduced in evidence without objection, reads in part as follows:
Appellant's neighbor Wingfield testified that appellant and deceased came from appellant's house into his front yard, that appellant pushed deceased down near his front steps, that he refused to permit appellant to come in his house and covered deceased's body with a blanket.
It was shown by the testimony of the undertaker and his assistant that deceased died as the result of several knife wounds which severed his intestines and caused them to protrude and, further, that appellant's knife had an overall length of nearly seven inches and was a deadly weapon when used to cut or stab.
Appellant and his older brother, who was present on the occasion, gave conflicting testimony as to what occurred, but the testimony of each of them raised the issue of self-defense, which was submitted to the jury and decided adversely to appellant. Appellant testified that he did not know what was in the statement which he had signed because he was in the throes of an epileptic seizure at the time he signed the same. He did, however, admit that that portion of the confession in which he told of deceased's running out the front door and of his catching him in the front yard and cutting him was correct.
The jury resolved the conflict in the evidence against the appellant, and we find it sufficient to support the conviction.
In his brief, appellant's court-appointed counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McIntire v. State
...if it is signed by counsel but is not sworn to him or the defendant. See 25 Tex.Jur.3rd, Criminal Law, § 3538, p. 456; Martin v. State, 334 S.W.2d 796 (Tex.Cr.App.1960). It has been said such an unverified motion is fatally defective. Carruthers v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 156 S.W.2d 988 (1......
-
Bearden v. State
...her attorney, it need not be considered when it is not attached to nor incorporated in a properly verified motion. Martin v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 334 S.W.2d 796 (1960); Ferguson v. State [159 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 261 S.W.2d 721] supra; Cartwright v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 344, 255 S.W.2d 878 (......
-
Brown v. State
...rule is well established and the attached affidavit of the allegedly newly discovered witness alone will not suffice. Martin v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 334 S.W.2d 796; Barnett v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 622, 273 S.W.2d 878." (Emphasis Even if the issue was properly before us, no error would ......
-
Lopez v. State, 35267
...276 S.W.2d 839; Howard v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 466, 308 S.W.2d 45; Thomas v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 316 S.W.2d 741; Martin v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 334 S.W.2d 796. The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction, and, no error appearing, the judgment is Opinion approved by the C......