Varnell v. State
Decision Date | 29 June 1888 |
Citation | 9 S.W. 65 |
Parties | VARNELL <I>v.</I> STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Hill county; J. M. HALL, Judge.
Indictment against F. P. Varnell for the murder of Jonas Land. Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree. Defendant requested an instruction (No. 3) to the effect that "even if defendant had intercourse with Ella Land, and Ella had separated from him and left the place, and then deceased with an axe made such an assault upon defendant as caused him reasonably to apprehend death or serious bodily injury, he would have been justifiable in killing deceased," which was refused.
Anderson, Flint & Anderson, Pearre & Boynton, S. C. Upshaw, and Thomas Joy, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
This conviction was for murder of the second degree, with the penalty fixed at nine years in the penitentiary.
The testimony of Mrs. Beasley, nee Land, is in substance as follows: The sister Ella to whom reference is made did not testify in the case. It was shown that she is now deaf, and is in the asylum at Austin. There is testimony in the record tending to contradict some parts of this recital, and clearly presenting the issue of self-defense; but for the purpose of disposing of the points raised on the charge of the court it may be taken as the facts attending the homicide.
Having submitted to the jury the general rules of law relating to manslaughter, murder of the first and second degree, and of self-defense, the court charged as follows: "When one person kills another in defense of his life, or to protect his person from serious bodily injury, then in law such killing would be justifiable, provided the person who did the killing did not by his own unlawful act provoke the difficulty, and bring about the excuse of taking the life of his assailant; in which case he would not in law be justifiable." Again: "If the defendant by his unlawful acts brought about the difficulty that led to the death of Jonas H. Land, then he would not be justified in killing said Land, because he, defendant, was in danger of losing his life or of suffering serious bodily harm at the hands of the said Land; but if the said difficulty was provoked by the defendant for the purpose of taking the life of said Land, and if the defendant killed him with express malice, it would be murder of the first degree; but if the killing was with implied malice, it would be murder of the second degree. * * *" If the accused provokes the combat — produces the occasion — in order...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Short
-
State v. Dunlap
... ... McGreevey, 17 ... Idaho 453, 105 P. 1047; State v. Fondren, 24 Idaho ... 663, 135 P. 265; State v. Rogers, 30 Idaho 259, 163 ... P. 912; Franklin v. State, 30 Tex. App. 628, 18 S.W ... 468; State v. Perigo, 70 Iowa 657, 28 N.W. 452; ... McGrew v. State (Tex. Cr.), 49 S.W. 226; Varnell ... v. State, 26 Tex. App. 56, 9 S.W. 65; Bassett v ... State, 44 Fla. 2, 33 So. 262; Matthews v. State, 42 Tex ... Cr. 31, 58 S.W. 86; 21 Cyc. 810.) ... A. H ... Conner, Attorney General, and James L. Boone, Assistant ... Attorney General, for Respondent ... ...
-
Smith v. State
...included examining the back doors of the businesses in the area. The facts do not warrant a charge on provocation. In Varnell v. State, 26 Tex.App. 56, 9 S.W. 65 (1888), the defendant was "evidently with the deceased's minor daughter when the deceased found them, and a foreseeable course of......
-
McDougal v. State
...White v. State, 23 Tex. App. 164, 3 S. W. 710; King v. State, 13 Tex. App. 284; Cunningham v. State, 17 Tex. App. 95; Varnell v. State, 26 Tex. App. 67, 9 S. W. 65; Arrellano v. State, 24 Tex. App. 43, 5 S. W. The next contention appellant urges most strenuously is that the court erred in p......