Stokes v. State, 27930

Decision Date18 January 1956
Docket NumberNo. 27930,27930
PartiesAlgle STOKES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

A. W. Salyars, Lubbock, for appellant.

Travis D. Shelton, Dist. Atty., and James F. Moore, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lubbock, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; the punishment, 3 years.

There were, as always, certain discrepancies in the evidence for the State and the defense, but we feel that the following is a fair synopsis of the pertinent facts here presented.

The injured party, Wilson, and his wife were the operators of the Food Spot, a cafe in the colored section of the City of Lubbock. Some two weeks prior to the shooting, the appellant and Wilson had a disagreement, and Wilson ordered the appellant to leave the cafe. Shortly thereafter, the appellant returned to the cafe with a Winchester rifle and asked for Wilson. Mrs. Wilson demanded that the appellant surrender the rifle to her, and he did so and left the establishment. The parties did not encounter each other again until the day of the shooting. Earlier in the evening, the appellant came to the cafe armed with a pistol and demanded the return of his rifle. Wilson and his wife overpowered the appellant and took the pistol from him. The appellant, feeling somewhat frustrated by this time, went to the home of his employer, borrowed a shotgun, and again returned to the cafe.

Wilson and his wife testified that the appellant fired without warning from the door of the cafe.

The appellant testified that he fired after he entered the cafe and after Wilson made a hip pocket gesture.

Wilson's arm was so severely injured by the shotgun blast that it was amputated.

The jury resolved the disputed issue of self defense against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The sole question presented for review is the action of the court in permitting the State to introduce in evidence the rifle, the pistol, and the shotgun. When each was offered, the appellant objected, and through his attorney agreed that they were the weapons which were carried and used by the appellant on the occasions in question.

Appellant relies upon two cases. In Hightower v. State, 103 Tex.Cr.R. 665, 281 S.W. 1063, the accused shot the deceased with a pistol in the City of Bryan. This Court held inadmissible the evidence of the sheriff who went to the appellant's home in an adjoining county and there found other weapons.

In Goss v. State, 104 Tex.Cr.R. 456, 284 S.W. 578, the accused shot the deceased with a pistol. This Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Pittman v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 24 Julio 1968
    ...the State to prove all the elements of the offense charged, including the cause of death. As stated by this Court in Stokes v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 286 S.W.2d 141, 'An accused cannot, by admitting damaging features of the State's case, cut it off from making proof thereof.' See also Re......
  • Harrison v. State, 46932
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 28 Noviembre 1973
    ...404, 120 S.W.2d 1054; Beard v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 171 S.W.2d 869; Pittman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 352; Stokes v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 286 S.W.2d 141. We have held in approving the admissibility of photographs that if a verbal description is relevant, then a photograph o......
  • Baker v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 10 Abril 1963
    ...was admissible under Art. 1257a, V.A.P.C., as showing the previous relationship between appellant and the deceased. Stokes v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 286 S.W.2d 141. Appellant's objection to the son's testimony on the ground of remoteness was not well taken, in view of the proof that appe......
  • Wright v. State, 35051
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 2 Enero 1963
    ...conviction. Thompson v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.App. 258, 339 S.W.2d 209; Beard v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 171 S.W.2d 869; Stokes v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 401, 286 S.W.2d 141; Parkman v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 191 S.W.2d Appellant's third contention is that the evidence is insufficient to supp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT