Norford v. State
Citation | 34 S.W.2d 290 |
Decision Date | 07 January 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 13853.,13853. |
Parties | NORFORD v. STATE. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; Allan D. Montgomery, Judge.
James Norford was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Edgar Scurry and Davenport & Crain, all of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Wichita county, Tex., of murder, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.
When the case was called for trial, an affidavit in manner and form sufficient for the purpose intended was presented to the trial court by counsel for the appellant, in which affidavit it was stated under oath that the defendant, James Norford, was insane and of unsound mind, and that he was incapable of testifying as a witness in this case or of assisting his counsel in the preparation for the trial of same, and a request was also contained in said motion and affidavit that the issue of insanity at the present time be first tried and separate from the murder case, which request and motion was refused by the trial court and exception thereto duly taken by the appellant, the court stating that the issue of insanity of the defendant at that time would be submitted to the jury along with the regular charge, with instructions that, if they found defendant was insane, to decide no other question, which action was preserved by bill of exception, and the case upon this bill of exception is submitted to this court for review.
This exact question was before this court in the case of Ramirez v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 38, 241 S. W. 1020, 1021. Judge Lattimore, speaking for the court, after review of the authorities on this subject and after quoting article 39 (Pen. Code 1911), now 34 of the Penal Code (1925), as follows: uses the following language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rice v. State
...not according to the statute, but it would be manifestly confusing to the jury and unfair to the accused." See, also, Norford v. State, 116 Tex.Cr. R. 533, 34 S.W.2d 290; Pickett v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 22 S.W.2d 136; Soderman v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 23, 260 S.W. 607; Lester v. State, 6......
-
Chapman v. State, 19873.
...is entitled to it. See Art. 34, P.C.; Guagando v. State, 41 Tex. 626; Ramirez v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 38, 241 S.W. 1020; Norford v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 34 S.W.2d 290; Pickett v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 22 S.W.2d 136; Soderman v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 23, 260 S.W. 607; Rice v. State, 12......
-
Ex parte Hodges
...23, 260 S.W. 607; Ray v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 31, 7 S.W.2d 93; Pickett v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 22 S.W.2d 136; Norford v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 34 S.W.2d 290; Chapman v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 124 S.W.2d 112; Rice v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 120 S.W.2d 588; Amos v. State, 155 Te......
-
Bennett v. State, 37110
...and upon another trial he should be granted such a hearing. Pickett v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 395, 22 S.W.2d 136; Norford v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 533, 34 S.W.2d 290; Rice v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 390, 120 S.W.2d The record reflects that over appellant's timely objection that the same was hears......