Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1888 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Cooke county; F. E. PINER, Judge.
On indictment for murder. The defendant, R. A. Williams, was convicted of manslaughter for the killing of one John Ware. The evidence showed that deceased and defendant got into a quarrel on their way home from Gainsville, and that two companions, Jarmon and Herrod, were present, who sought to interfere. Jarmon, called as a witness for the state, denied ever having said that he told defendant, on the way to Gainsville, that if he got into trouble he would help him out. Testimony was introduced to show that Jarmon did make that statement at the time of the inquest. The defendant appeals.
R. V. Bell and Gresham, Jones & Spencer, for appellant. W. L. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
There is a fundamental error in the charge of the court with respect to the penalty for manslaughter. It states the minimum punishment to be confinement in the penitentiary for three years, while the law fixes it at two years. Pen. Code, art. 604. The error is confessed by the assistant attorney general, and because of such error the conviction must be set aside. Wilson v. State, 14 Tex. App. 527; Bostic v. State, 22 Tex. App. 136, 2 S. W. Rep. 538, and cases cited. Several objections to the charge of the court, upon murder in the first and second degrees, have been presented and urged by counsel for defendant, which we decline to consider and determine, because not necessary to a disposition of the case, and because the law of murder has been eliminated from the case by the conviction of a lower grade of homicide. With respect to the charge of the court upon the issue of the intoxication of the defendant, it follows substantially the language of the statute, and is not materially different from charges heretofore approved by this court. Willson, Tex. Crim. Laws, 92-94. The statute referred to is awkwardly worded, and its meaning in some respects is not very clear. As we construe it, it means that intoxication, or temporary insanity produced by the voluntary recent use of ardent spirits, will not excuse crime, or necessarily mitigate the penalty prescribed by law for the crime. But such state of mind may be proved, and when proved, may be considered by the jury in mitigation of the prescribed punishment. In a case where the charge is murder, such state of mind may be considered by the jury in determining the degree of the homicide, and also in mitigation of the penalty of any degree of homicide of which the defendant might be found guilty. Such we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
... ... murder influenced or conduced the verdict actually rendered ... The jury must have completely rejected the hypotheses ... advanced in the state's instructions, otherwise they ... would have found him guilty as therein directed. A leading ... case on this subject is that of Williams v. State, ... 25 Tex. App. 76, 7 S.W. 661, which states the rule as ... follows: "Conviction for a lower grade of homicide than ... murder eliminates the law of murder from the case, and ... relieves this court of the duty of considering *** the charge ... of the trial court upon murder." The ... ...
-
State v. Johnson, 6565.
...they would have found him guilty as therein directed. A leading case on this subject is that of Williams v. State, 25 Tex. App. 76, 7 S. W. 661, which states the rule as follows: "Conviction for a lower grade of homicide than murder eliminates the law of murder from the case, and relieves t......
-
Hall v. State
...of the witness, the court should limit such proof in the charge to the jury. Tyler v. State, 13 [Tex.] App. 209; Williams v. State, 25 [Tex.] App. 89, 7 S.W. 661; Thompson v. State, 29 [Tex.] App. 209, 15 S.W. 206; Shackelford v. State [Tex.Cr.App.], 27 S.W. 8; Paris v. State, 35 [Tex.] Cr.......
-
State v. Albert Johnson
...instructions, otherwise they would have found him guilty as therein directed. A leading case on this subject is that of Williams v. State, 25 Tex. App. 76, 7 S. W. 661, which states the rule as follows: "Conviction for a lower grade of homicide than murder eliminates the law of murder from ......