Wolf v. State
Decision Date | 24 February 1904 |
Parties | WOLF v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; Irby Dunklin, Judge.
Joe Wolf was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed.
B. D. Shropshire and Parker & Parker, for appellant. O. S. Lattimore, Co. Atty., and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life.
By bill of exceptions it is made to appear that appellant presented to the court affidavit for severance, asking that Joe Lawrence, who was separately indicted for this offense, be first tried, so that this defendant could have the benefit of the evidence of Joe Lawrence on the acquittal of Joe Lawrence, and that there was not sufficient evidence against Joe Lawrence to secure his conviction. Joe Lawrence was indicted for the same homicide. The court appends this explanation to the bill: "When the case was called for trial, the case of the State v. Joe Lawrence had been called for trial, and had been continued by the court for the term on application by the state for good and legal grounds shown; and to have granted the motion of Joe Wolf, the overruling of which is complained of in the foregoing bill of exceptions, would have necessitated a continuance of the case against him for the term." Commenting upon a similar question in Forcey v. State, 29 Tex. App. 410, 16 S. W. 261, this language was used: When a party separately indicted has made the affidavit required, the state cannot defeat his right to have first tried the case of the defendant selected to be first tried by continuing said case, and to force him to trial under such circumstances is reversible error. We therefore hold that the court erred in not awarding defendant his statutory right of having his codefendant, Lawrence, tried first. If the facts are as they appear in this record. Lawrence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oates v. State
...Cr. R. 472, 34 S. W. 282; Shaw v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 174, 45 S. W. 597; Manor v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 786; Wolf v. State, 79 S. W. 520, 9 Tex. Ct. Rep. 946. These cases are not applicable, inasmuch as the question of an agreement to turn state's evidence is not involved in eith......
-
Puryear v. State
...The object of his severance was defeated. This case illustrates and enforces the views of the writer on this subject. Wolf v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 231, 79 S. W. 520; Follis v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. R. 202, 78 S. W. 1069. In the latter case, Follis made a motion to sever from his codefendant D......
-
Perez v. State
...the case before he forced appellant to trial. Manor v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S. W. 786, 8 Tex. Ct. Rep. 867; Wolf v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 79 S. W. 520, 9 Tex. Ct. Rep. 946. The most serious question is the action of the court refusing appellant's special requested instructions bearing o......
-
Wilson v. State
...case as to the party sought to be first tried, and then force the other defendant to trial. This principle was applied in Wolf v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 79 S. W. 520. Under the facts of those two cases, those decisions are correct. But the doctrine there enunciated has no application to this......