Tucker v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 1899 |
| Citation | 50 S.W. 711 |
| Parties | TUCKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Grimes county; J. M. Smither, Judge.
George D. Tucker was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed.
Boyd & Thompson, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years; and he prosecutes this appeal.
He reserved a bill of exceptions to that portion of the court's charge on manslaughter, which instructs the jury "that the provocation must arise at the time of the commission of the offense, and that the passion is not the result of a former provocation." The question of manslaughter was suggested only on account of insulting language used by deceased in reference to the wife of appellant. There had been some ill feeling between appellant and deceased for some time previous to the homicide. On the evening preceding the homicide, Manning Snow and deceased had a conversation, in which, among other things, deceased is said to have stated "that Mrs. Tucker [wife of appellant] was at a certain point to meet old Booker, and that he would bet that she would have a negro young one in less than nine months." Booker is a negro. This conversation was communicated to defendant that night. On the following morning the parties met for the first time. Snow, Harrison, appellant, and perhaps one or two others, being present, the deceased came riding along. There is some uncertainty in the testimony as to whether appellant caused Snow to stop deceased, and inquire of him with reference to the statement made to Snow the evening before. However this may be, Snow did stop and inquire of deceased if he denied the statements he had made the evening before to him in reference to Mrs. Tucker. Deceased replied: —and said something about Booker; but the witness did not understand what it was. At this juncture the witness testified that deceased threw his hand behind him, and turned his eyes in the direction of appellant, and appellant began firing. Deceased was shot several times, death resulting almost instantly. Under this state of facts, the court charged the jury "that the provocation must arise at the time of the commission of the offense, and that the passion is not the result of a former provocation," and further charged: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaynes v. State
...and to support the proposition cited the following authorities: Akin v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 325, 326, 327, 119 S. W. 863; Tucker v. State, 50 S. W. 711. The thirteenth paragraph of the motion complained of a charge on manslaughter, because it did not give a clear, distinct, and affirmativ......
-
Redman v. State
...this court. Authorities: Richardson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 216, 12 S. W. 870; Venters v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 280, 83 S. W. 832; Tucker v. State, 50 S. W. 711; Loyd v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 533, 81 S. W. 293; McAnear v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 518, 67 S. W. 117; Aikin v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R......
-
Martin v. State
...court limited manslaughter to the provocation arising at the time of the killing. As was said in Tucker v. State (decided at present term) 50 S. W. 711: "Where insulting conduct or language is relied upon to reduce the homicide to manslaughter, the party is entitled, where the facts in evid......
-
Canister v. State
...law should have been given by the court in his charge to the jury. Richardson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 216, 12 S. W. 870; Tucker v. State, (Tex. Cr. App.) 50 S. W. 711; Hopkins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 50 S. W. Appellant also complains of the following portion of the charge: "Where the defend......