Thomas v. State, 23680.

Decision Date28 June 1947
Docket NumberNo. 23680.,23680.
Citation203 S.W.2d 536
PartiesTHOMAS v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Nolan County; A. S. Mauzey, Judge.

Jim Thomas was convicted of murder and he appeals.

Reversed and cause remanded.

See also Tex.Cr.App., 189 S.W.2d 621.

John B. McNamera and C. S. Farmer, both of Waco, Curtiss Douglass, of Pampa, George McCarthy, of Amarillo, and R. Temple Dickson, of Sweetwater, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for life.

His chief contention is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.

The record reflects that on the morning of October 26, 1943, the dead bodies of Dr. and Mrs. Hunt were found on a bed in their bedroom and were identified. Dr. Hunt was shot between the eyes and Mrs. Hunt was struck on the head with some instrument. There is no question but that they died from the effects of the wounds inflicted upon them.

The record further reflects that appellant was a paroled convict. His parole was a conditional one in that he was not to leave Galveston County. On or about the 22nd day of October, he violated the parole by going to Amarillo to visit Sid Veazey and family who were his friends for many years. He arrived at the Veazey home late in the afternoon on Saturday, October 23, 1943. The following Sunday afternoon he borrowed Mr. Veazey's automobile but returned to the Veazey home some time during the night. Thus the evidence conclusively shows that he was in Amarillo at the time in question. On Monday afternoon, he borrowed an automobile from G A. Craig, also a friend, which he returned the next morning. The State's evidence also shows that he told Mrs. Veazey that he went to the Craig apartment that night to return the automobile and keys, but saw no light and assumed that they were asleep; that he then came to the Veazey home but found the doors locked so he went back to town.

Eddie Glass testified that he owned and operated a cafe in the town of Littlefield; that on Sunday night, October 24th, appellant was in his cafe between the hours of 8:00 and 9:00 p. m. and again on Monday night about the same time. This testimony places appellant in the town of Littlefield from five to six hours prior to the commission of the offense.

We next have the testimony of the investigating Officers. Their testimony is to the effect that they found human foot prints about the premises of Dr. Hunt which apparently were made by a person wearing tennis shoes. Sid Veazey's son had a pair of tennis shoes which had been considerably worn. These shoes were found by the Rangers in a closet in the room occupied by Mr. Veazey's son. The officers took these shoes and requested the boy to examine them which he did and he then identified them as his shoes. No markings or buffing were pointed out to him at the time and he did not notice any. Some months later a Texas Ranger took these shoes to Arkadelphia in Arkansas where the Veazey boy was stationed in the Army and pointed out to the boy certain markings or scratches thereon which he termed buffing. The boy, upon being shown these markings, then noticed them. The testimony shows beyond question that if the shoes were in the same condition on the night in question as when brought to the Department of Public Safety in Austin, Texas, they could not have made the tracks found about the home of Dr. Hunt.

The officers also found tracks in an alley to the rear of the Hunt home which were made by automobiles. These tracks disclosed that an automobile having a Lee tire on the left front wheel had been in the alley. The Craig automobile which appellant had borrowed on Monday afternoon and which he returned to Mr. Craig on the following morning had a Lee tire on the right front wheel. It will thus be noted that unless the Lee tire on the Craig car was changed from the left front wheel to the right front wheel after leaving the alley, it was not the Craig car which was in the alley. The record does not show that any such change took place.

The next circumstance upon which the State relies is a damaged place on and under the running board of the Craig car which indicated that it had been driven on or against some hard object which had broken the metal binding or guard on the side of the running board and had made some scratches under it. The testimony also shows that the officers found a rock or a cement block in the alley of which the top was broken which might have been done by an automobile having been backed into it. Whether the damage to the car and the rock appeared to have occurred recently is not disclosed by the record. Mrs. Hnulik, who at the time was Mrs. Craig, testified that some time prior to the time Thomas borrowed the car she ran into the curbing while parking the car in Amarillo and had damaged the running board. She further testified that at the time the officers came to inspect the car, she told them that she had backed the car on to a curb and damaged the running board and pointed out the place to them where it occurred. She also testified that one of the prosecuting attorneys and another person wearing a blue suit took her into the private chamber of the presiding judge a few minutes prior to the time she took the witness stand and threatened to prosecute her for perjury if she testified to a lie.

The next circumstance is a piece of string which was similar to a string found on the bed when the dead bodies of Dr. and Mrs. Hunt were discovered. This piece of string which was about two inches in length was found in a stove located in Mr. Veazey's garage and repair shop some 120 miles from the scene of the killing. Who placed the string in the stove or how long it had been there is left to conjecture. However, Mr. McLaughlin, Chief...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 1983
    ...calls for application of the rules of law relating to circumstantial evidence. Those rules are set out in Thomas v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 540, 203 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1947), as "In order to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence each fact necessary to the conclusion sought t......
  • State ex rel. Kanieski v. Gagnon
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1972
    ...State v. Davidson (1969), 44 Wis.2d 177, 200, 170 N.W.2d 755.11 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 891, pp. 500, 501; Thomas v. State (1947), 150 Tex. Cr.R. 540, 545, 203 S.W.2d 536.12 (1954), 267 Wis. 87, 88, 64 N.W.2d 187.13 State v. Ritchie (1970), 46 Wis.2d 47, 174 N.W.2d 504.14 Supra, footnote 9......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 7, 1969
    ...v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 210 S.W.2d 582, which is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar on the facts alone. Thomas v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 540, 203 S.W.2d 536, also cited, is distinguishable because in Thomas there was no evidence placing the defendant in close proximity to the s......
  • Small v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 23, 1963
    ...S.W.2d 358; Kitchens v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 272, 167 S.W.2d 762; O'Keefe v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 167 S.W.2d 1035; Thomas v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 540, 203 S.W.2d 536; and Massey v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 263, 226 S.W.2d The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. WOODLEY, Presiding ......
  • 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