Williams v. State

Decision Date01 January 1874
Citation42 Tex. 392
PartiesHENRY WILLIAMS AND IKE SMITH v. THE STATE.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. I. B. McFarland.

June 25, 1874, the grand jury of Fayette county presented an indictment charging that Dick King, Ike Smith, Offer Alexander, Henry Williams, and Anderson Satterfield “on the 10th day of December, 1873, with force and arms, in the County of Fayette, State of Texas, did then and there willfully, feloniously, and of their malice aforethought, together and with each other, by the aid and assistance each of the other,” * * * “in and upon the body of one Deitrich Mueller * * * * make an assault. And that the said Dick King, a certain pistol (which said pistol was then and there a deadly weapon, which said pistol was then and there of the value of ten dollars, which said pistol he the said Dick King in his hand then and there had and held) at, to, towards and upon the body of him the said Deitrich Mueller, did then and there draw and present, and that he the said Dick King with the said pistol as aforesaid, did then and there strike, cut, beat, bruise, wound, and abuse him the said Deitrich Mueller, in and upon the head and in and upon the body of him the said Deitrich Mueller, giving to him the said Deitrich Mueller, one dangerous and mortal wound” * * * “and that he, the said Offer Alexander as aforesaid, a certain pistol in his hand then and there had and held (which said pistol was then and there a deadly weapon * * ) at, to, towards, and upon the body of the said Deitrich Mueller, did then and there draw and present, and that he, the said Offer Alexander, as aforesaid, with the said pistol did then and there him the said Deitrich Mueller, strike, cut, beat, penetrate, and wound in and upon the head and in and upon the body of him, the said Deitrich Mueller, giving to him, the said Deitrich Mueller, one dangerous and mortal wound * * * of which said mortal wounds inflicted by them, the said Dick King and Offer Alexander as aforesaid, he, the said Deitrich Mueller, then and there suffered, and suffering did die, and that the said Ike Smith, Henry Williams and Anderson Satterfield, as aforesaid, were then and there present when the said Dick King and Offer Alexander wounded the said Deitrich Mueller as aforesaid, and did then and there aid and abet the said Dick King and Offer Alexander, and did then and there act together and with the said Dick King and Offer Alexander, while they, the said Dick King and Offer Alexander, struck, bruised, beat, and wounded him the said Deitrich Mueller, as aforesaid, and that they, the said Ike Smith, Henry Williams and Anderson Satterfield, as aforesaid, did then and there by threatening gestures and encouraging words aid, abet, assist, and comfort the said Dick King and Offer Alexander in the murder of him the said Deitrich Mueller,” etc.

King was not arrested. Alexander, Smith, and Williams were convicted;--Alexander and Smith of murder in the first degree, and Williams in the second degree, with punishment in penitentiary for fifteen years.

Smith and Williams moved for new trial and in arrest of judgment, which being overruled, they appealed.

Satterfield was examined as witness in behalf of the State, the prosecution having been dismissed as to him.

The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

J. R. Burns, for appellants.

Geo. Clark, for State.

MOORE, J.

It has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Oliver v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 11, 1911
    ...or complaint and information, charging him directly with its actual commission." White's Ann. Penal Code, § 86, subdiv. 2; Williams v. State, 42 Tex. 392; Gladden v. State, 2 Tex. App. 508; Davis v. State, 3 Tex. App. 91; Tuller v. State, 8 Tex. App. 501; Mills v. State, 13 Tex. App. It mig......
  • Marable v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 18, 2002
    ...68. 8. Id., art. 69. 9. Id., art. 70. 10. Cruit v. State, 41 Tex. 476, 477 (1874). 11. Id., at 477-78 (emphasis added). 12. Williams v. State, 42 Tex. 392, 394 (1874). 13. June 25, 1874, the grand jury of Fayette county presented an indictment charging that Dick King, Ike Smith, Offer Alexa......
  • Bohannon v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 28, 1918
    ...under some facts, be improper for the court in its charge to assume, and to instruct the jury, that a witness is an accomplice (Williams v. State, 42 Tex. 392; Barrara v. State, 42 Tex. 260), still we do not think it is error to submit the question to the jury. It has been the practice in s......
  • Scribner v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • May 31, 1913
    ...should turn state's evidence against his confederates (citing Garrett v. State, 41 Tex. 530; Barrara v. State, 42 Tex. 260; Williams v. State, 42 Tex. 392; Wright State, 43 Tex. 170), and the court reversed the case because the defendant was tried and convicted on a subsequent indictment, w......
  • 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