Roberts v. State

• Decision Date: 03 November 1909
• Citation: 122 S.W. 388
• Parties: ROBERTS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

122 S.W. 388

ROBERTS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 3, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Houston County; B. H. Gardner, Judge.

Henry Roberts was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

Moore & Sallas, for appellant. F. J. McCord, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

This conviction was for manslaughter; the punishment being assessed at four years in the penitentiary.

It would be difficult to read a record where the contradictions are more numerous or more critical than is evidenced by the facts found in this record. The appellant is a stepson of the deceased, and was at his home when the deceased came by and was shot. The son of deceased, stepbrother of appellant, testified, as did another witness, that appellant shot the deceased because he was whipping his half-sister, the daughter of deceased. This daughter, who is said to have been chastised by her father, testified that she was not there and her father had not whipped her; that she was at home, her father's residence, at the time of the homicide, doing a day's washing, and knew nothing of the transaction until some hours after the shooting occurred, and after her father was brought home shot. The deceased lived some time, and made statements in regard to how the shooting occurred, and he stated each time that the shooting was accidental. The theory of the defendant was that the deceased was passing his house bee-hunting, and introduced evidence to that effect, and that he and his stepbrother, Marshall, son of deceased, had been shooting at a target, and that he (appellant) fired the pistol, not knowing that his stepfather was passing; that deceased could not be seen by him, on account of weeds, timber, and brush, and the shooting was purely accidental and unintentional. One of the state's witnesses, who testifies to the shooting as being criminal, was shown not to have been present at the time of the shooting. The whole record is full of direct contradictions as to the witnesses and their presence or nonpresence at the time of the difficulty.

In this view of the record we are asked to reverse the case on account of want of sufficient evidence to justify a verdict. We are of opinion that this contention ought not to be sustained. The jury are the exclusive judges of the facts proved and the credibility of the witnesses. Whether the state's witnesses swore falsehoods or not we cannot say, and the jury saw proper to believe their version of the...