Skaggs v. State

• Decision Date: 08 February 1893
• Citation: 21 S.W. 257
• Parties: SKAGGS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

21 S.W. 257

SKAGGS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

February 8, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Comal county; T. M. Paschal, Judge.

J. C. Skaggs was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HURT, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, for the murder of J. W. Erkles. If the history of the facts and circumstances attending the homicide, contained in the dying declarations, are true, we think appellant was justly convicted of murder in the second degree, provided there was no reversible error or errors made by the court in admitting or rejecting evidence, or in instructions to the jury,

Counsel for appellant contend that there was error in admitting the statement of Mrs. Skaggs made to Mason Erkles, namely, that she knew that her husband (defendant) was going to kill deceased. This statement was not competent for any purpose; but when the opinion of this court in the Drake Case, 15 S. W. Rep. 725, was read to the court, the learned trial judge withdrew the statement from the consideration of the jury.

Appellant proposed to introduce in evidence the general reputation of the deceased, acquired after the homicide. Upon objection by the state, the proposed evidence was rejected. In this there was no error. Appellant proposed to prove by himself that he knew of acts of violence committed by deceased, which tended to prove deceased a man of violent and dangerous character. Upon objection made by the state, he was not permitted to do so. Under certain circumstances the rejection of such evidence would be reversible error, (Childers v. State, 30 Tex. App. 160, 16 S. W. Rep. 903; 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. §§ 609, 610;) but under the facts of this case such evidence would not have affected the result.

Deceased, in his dying declarations, states: "On this morning I found my fence cut. As this was done on several different occasions, and as I was told that Skaggs had acknowledged the same, I went on the road to his house to inquire into the matter. Previous to this I had been to his house a couple of times, but could not find him. As I say, on the road I met Skaggs, and inquired of him if he had cut my fence, and also his reasons. I sent Mason, my son, to repair the same. Skaggs' reply was: `Yes, damn it; I cut it, and will cut it again if you put it up.' I then slapped him with my open hand in the face, he (Skaggs) drawing his pistol, and striking me over the forehead nearly knocking me off my horse. Further trouble was stopped at this time, and we rode along for a certain distance, say, three hundred or four hundred yards, when the dispute about the fence was renewed. One word followed another, until he remarked: `I have been carrying this weapon for the last year for you, and I might as well make use of it now as ever. I intend to kill you, anyhow.' The shooting then commenced, one striking me in...