Spencer v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 1905 |
| Citation | 90 S.W. 638 |
| Parties | SPENCER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Nacogdoches County; Jas. I. Perkins, Judge.
Simon Spencer was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Rehearing denied December 20, 1905.
Moss Adams and V. E. Middlebrook, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death; hence this appeal.
The court submitted murder in the first and second degrees, and the law applicable to self-defense. We do not understand any exception was reserved to the charge of the court. In fact, the charge on self-defense, although favorable to defendant, was hardly warranted by the testimony. The case here shown by the state was that of a secret homicide, committed by appellant on deceased; no person being present, except appellant and deceased. The confessions of appellant show that he and deceased were engaged in a game of cards, and on his suggestion they moved farther down into the brush, and as deceased walked along before appellant the latter picked up a seasoned stick and struck him over the head, felling him to the earth, and then beat him to death, although deceased was begging for mercy. In this connection it is further shown that the motive for this homicide was robbery; deceased having won appellant's horse and money in a gambling transaction. After the homicide, appellant is shown to have concealed the body by burying it in the bed of the creek. In pursuance of his confession, the body was subsequently found and disinterred. The skull was shown to have been crushed, and the shirt and handkerchief, known to have been the property of deceased, were reasonably identified; also a pair of cuff buttons. Appellant himself testified, and his testimony is hardly variant from that of his confession introduced in evidence.
Appellant made a motion to quash the indictment, on the ground, that it begins "In the name and by the authority of the state of Texas," whereas the Constitution requires that the indictment begin "In the name and by authority of the state of Texas," leaving out the article "the." The insertion of this article "the" does not add to or in the least vary the sense and meaning of the constitutional requirement. The court did not err in refusing to quash on this ground. Nor was it necessary that the names of the witnesses upon whose testimony the indictment was found should be indorsed on the back thereof.
Appellant excepted to the action of the court in the impanelment of the jury to try the case. It seems that three or four of the jurors on the special venire were, at the time appellant's case was called, out deliberating on another case. When their names were reached appellant insisted on having them before the court. This the court declined to do, and was proceeding with the testing of other jurors. In the meantime the jury that was out came in with a verdict and was discharged. They were then placed in the box, to which appellant objected, and their qualifications tested. Each qualified, but were all peremptorily challenged by the state. In this there was no error.
In another bill appellant asked that the venire be quashed, because only 20 jurors had been summoned on the venire of 40, and as he alleges he had not had one day's service of the venire. This latter proposition is not supported by any evidence. The court shows that 24 of the jurors on the venire of 40 were summoned, and in attendance on the court. A number of the others had been excused, and some not found. There was no error in the court's refusal to quash the venire.
Appellant objected to the introduction of his confession through the witness Irvine Williams, on the ground that it was induced by fraud, the witness pretending that he had committed various crimes, among others, had killed people. This was made by witness (who was a detective) in order to secure the confidence of appellant, and to gain the confession from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Egbert v. State
- McCurley v. State
-
Johnson v. State, 36123
...render the confession inadmissible or require the court to submit to the jury the question of its voluntary nature. Spencer v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 90 S.W. 638. His complaint as to the alleged oral confession relating to identification does not present error as the same matter is contai......
-
Templeton v. State
...instead of reading, "In the name and by authority of the State of Texas." Appellant's contention was held untenable in Spencer v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 580, 90 S.W. 638; Monroe v. State, 56 Tex.Cr.R. 444, 120 S.W. 479, in which a similar question as the one presented here was decided adversel......