Pratt v. State
Decision Date | 20 March 1908 |
Citation | 109 S.W. 138 |
Parties | PRATT v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Hopkins County; R. L. Porter, Judge.
W. B. Pratt was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Templeton, Crosby & Dinsmore, Stillwell H. Russell, Newman Phillips, L. L. Wood, and Patteson & Sharp, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is the second appeal of this case. The former appeal is reported in 96 S. W. 8. On the last trial appellant was again convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years.
Appellant complains of the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, because of the admission of the testimony of certain witnesses as to the particulars of the difficulty which occurred between the deceased and the defendant on Saturday evening prior to the homicide on the following Monday. The case is one of circumstantial evidence. In such case, and particularly where a defendant relies upon threats and self-defense, the state has, we think, the right to inquire into former difficulties, the surroundings and environments of the parties, with a view of showing the animus of the accused, to ascertain their relations, and to throw light upon the question as to who would probably be the aggressor in any difficulty between them. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the killing great latitude must be and is always allowed in the introduction of testimony, and the state should be permitted to explore every legitimate field of inquiry that might throw light on the matter, and develop the relations existing between the parties. To adopt any other rule would tend to obscure the issue in such case, and frequently render it impossible to arrive at the truth, and prevent the punishment of the guilty. Nor is it believed that the adoption of such a rule could or would have the effect to unduly prejudice the rights of the defendant. The case cited by appellant to sustain the proposition herein insisted on (Holley v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 301, 46 S. W. 39) is not wholly in point. That case was reversed on the ground that the threat proven was too general, and there was nothing in the language that indicated that it was directed towards the defendant, and upon the failure of the court to permit Mrs. Holley to testify that the deceased frequently upbraided her, and expressed ill will and hatred towards defendant. There is, we think, nothing in the decision of that case which restricts the right of the state to prove facts showing malice, and as illustrating the relation of the parties and their previous difficulties.
By the second assignment of error appellant complains that the court erred in not permitting him to prove by the witness Luther Moore what appellant said to him as to the facts of the killing of the deceased. This matter arose substantially in this way: On his direct examination Luther Moore, introduced by the state, testified: " Upon cross-examination the witness, among other things, testified: Appellant then asked the witness to tell the jury what appellant said in this conversation in explanation of said killing, and how the same occurred. Counsel for the state objected to the inquiry, and the evidence sought to be elicited thereby on the ground that such statement and declarations were hearsay, immaterial, and irrelevant, which objections were by the court sustained, and the proffered testimony excluded. The bill of exceptions evidences that, if permitted, the witness would have testified as follows: "Defendant, in said conversation, had, in the presence of me and Oscar and Carter Anderson on the road to Cooper, stated that on Sunday evening prior to the killing on Monday morning at John Pratt's house the deceased told him that he was coming over to the store the next morning, and take a stick or club and break his damned old neck, and that on Monday morning he (defendant) went over to the store to get some ice, and that he opened the door so as to let in light sufficient to see how to get the ice out of the icehouse, and that when he opened the door he saw the deceased, Lide, standing on John Pratt's north porch, facing the store, and that Lide immediately started towards him, and that when he saw him coming he went to the gun case and got his gun and set it down by the side of the door and looked and saw Lide was still coming; that he came right on in that direction and never stopped, and that when he got within about 30 yards of him defendant asked him if he was coming for peace or for war, and he refused to make any reply to him; that the deceased was looking right in his face, but never said a word; that he then picked his gun up, and, pointing it towards the deceased, called to him two or three times to halt, and he refused to do so, but come right on, looking defendant right in the face, looking angry, and came toward him like an old mad bull; that when he got within about 12 or 15 feet of defendant that he shot and killed him; that his gun was loaded with 7½ chilled shot; that he hated it, and that he did it to save his own life; that Lide was a very dangerous man, and if he had waited until he got in reach of him, owing to his (defendant's) physical condition, that he would not have had any show in a contest with deceased." This testimony was admissible, and the court erred in excluding it. White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 791, is as follows: This precise question was raised, discussed, and settled in the case of Greene v. State, 17 Tex. App. 395. In this case, after quoting the above article, Judge Willson says: . After referring to the case of Shrivers v. State, 7 Tex. App. 450, which seemed to have ignored the provisions of the abovequoted article, the opinion then proceeds: This case has been frequently followed by this court, and the principle there stated is illustrated in the facts of many cases. See Harrison v. State, 20 Tex. App. 387, 54 Am. Rep. 529, Rainey v. State, 20 Tex. App. 455, Gaither v. State, 21 Tex. App. 528, 1 S. W. 456, and Bonnard v. State, 25 Tex. App. 173, 7 S. W. 862, 8 Am. St. Rep. 431, in which the case of Greene v. State is, in express terms, cited and approved. It has, however, been held that declarations and statements are not admissible in evidence to explain previous statements and declarations, when such previous declarations and statements are full and complete, and there is nothing left in doubt concerning them. Craig v. State, 30 Tex. App. 619, 18 S. W. 297.
The true...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Myer
...no authority to make any rule or enact any legislation in contravention of the plain provisions of the Bill of Rights. Pratt v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 281, 109 S. W. 138; Gold v. Campbell, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 269, 117 S. W. 463; Ex parte Farnsworth, 61 Tex. Cr. R. 353, 135 S. W. 535, 33 L. R. ......
-
Renn v. State
...99 S. W. 551; Tillman v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 204, 101 S. W. 210; Young v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 444, 55 S. W. 331; Pratt v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 281, 109 S. W. 138; Gant v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 116 S. W. 801; Bradley v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 398, 132 S. W. 488; Darnell v. State, 58......
-
Meldrum v. State
... ... Y.); People v. Gilhooley, (N. Y.), 95 ... N. Y. St. 636, 181 N.Y. 551, 80 N.E. 1116; Ray v ... State, 45 So. 698 (Ala.); Jones v. State, 128 ... Ga. 23, 57 S.E. 313; Lake v. Com. 104 S.W. 1003; ... State v. Herlihy, 102 Me. 310, 66 A. 643; Dowd ... v. State, 108 S.W. 389, Pratt v. State, 109 ... S.W. 138; People v. Garnett, 98 P. 247 (Cal.) The ... showing may be made by affidavit and a finding that it is ... sufficient will not be disturbed, if the finding is fairly ... supported by such evidence. ( Young v. People, 130 P ... 1018 (Colo.) The authorities cited ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
...See Brumley v. State, 21 Tex. App. 238, 17 S. W. 140, 57 Am. Rep. 612; Johnson v. State, 22 Tex. App. 206, 2 S. W. 609; Pratt v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 289, 109 S. W. 138; Clark v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 298, 120 S. W. 179; Gant v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 116 S. W. 801; Gray v. State, 47 T......