Williams v. State
Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
Citation | 42 Tex. 392 |
Parties | HENRY WILLIAMS AND IKE SMITH v. THE STATE. |
Court | Texas 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,” * * * * * * “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.
It has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oliver v. State
...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
...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
...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
...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......