Wright v. State

• Citation: 37 S.W. 732
• Parties: WRIGHT v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 11 November 1896
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

37 S.W. 732

WRIGHT v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 11, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Medina county; Eugene Archer, Judge.

J. A. Wright was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Reversed.

S. B. Easley and John A. Green, Jr., for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary, and he prosecutes this appeal.

1. In this case appellant took several bills of exception to the refusal of the court to permit testimony that the deceased had used insulting language toward the female relations of the defendant. The offer of this testimony was not coupled with any proffer on the part of counsel to show that, prior to the killing, the same were communicated to the defendant, and that thereafter he shot the deceased on his first meeting with him; and the court informed counsel that, if they would connect said testimony as above stated, he would admit the same. There was no error in this action of the court.

2. Objection was also made to the witness John Howard testifying that he could approximate the size of the ball from the size and character of the wounds he saw in the body of the deceased, and that said wounds were inflicted by a ball all the way from 38 to 45 caliber. This was objected to on the ground that it was not such a matter concerning which an opinion could be given,—that it was not a matter of expert testimony. We believe that this testimony was admissible. Concede, however, that it was not, the object of it was to prove that the wounds were inflicted by bullets of 44 caliber. There was no question as to this. The defendant himself admitted that he did the shooting with a 44-caliber Winchester.

3. Nor, as explained by the court, was there any error in the refusal of the court to permit the witness Howard to state what occurred in the grand jury room as to raising a subscription to employ counsel to prosecute the appellant. It was intended by this testimony to show the animus of the witness Howard, who testified on behalf of the state, and the court shows that the defendant was permitted to prove by this witness that he contributed money towards the prosecution of the defendant in this case.

4. Objection was also made to the witness Jim Love testifying as to a conversation between him and Mrs. Campbell the night that said Love and defendant Wright went to the tomato patch with their guns to await the coming of the deceased. It appears that the defendant was present at the time, and in a situation to have heard the conversation. The testimony only showed that Love went with his gun at the request of Mrs. Campbell, rather than at defendant's request, though he went with the defendant, and they both were engaged in the same mission, and understood what they went there for; and it is immaterial whether he went at Mrs. Campbell's request or at the instance of the defendant. He went with the defendant, to co-operate with him in whatever he did.

5. There was no error in the exclusion of the witness Ludwig's testimony to the effect that deceased may have cursed and abused the wife of said Ludwig. She was not related to the defendant, nor did said transaction have anything to do with the killing in this case.

6. We do not understand that John Perkins was on trial in this case, or that the defendant can avail himself of an objection to testimony by the wife of John Perkins that might tend to incriminate him (John Perkins) in the killing of the deceased. However, the testimony of Mrs. Rena Perkins did not have that effect.

7. When the defendant, J. A. Wright, was on the stand, testifying on his own behalf, on cross-examination, the state was permitted, over the objection of the defendant, to ask him, "Did you not tell Mr. Brown when you went to see him [Brown] that he [Glover] started to draw his pistol on you, and...