Zunago v. State

• Decision Date: 17 May 1911
• Citation: 138 S.W. 713
• Parties: ZUNAGO v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

138 S.W. 713

ZUNAGO v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 17, 1911.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Williamson County; Chas. A. Wilcox, Judge.

Pedro Zunago, alias Pedro Sanigo, alias Pedro Rodriguez, was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J. F. Taulbee and Wilcox & Graves, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, J.

The appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Williamson county on June 11, 1909, for the murder of his wife, alleged to have occurred May 31, 1909. The indictment is as follows: "In the name and by the authority of the state of Texas. The grand jurors, of Williamson county, in said state duly impaneled, sworn, and charged as such at the June term, A. D. 1909, of the district court of said county, in and for the Twenty-Sixth judicial district, upon their oaths, in said court, present: That Pedro Zunago, alias Pedro Sanigo, alias Pedro Rodriguez in said county and state, on or about the 31st day of May in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and nine, and before the presentment of this indictment, did then and there unlawfully with malice aforethought kill Lula Zunago by then and there shooting the said Lula Zunago with a pistol, against the peace and dignity of the state." The indictment is properly signed by the foreman. He was tried in November, 1909, and the death penalty assessed.

There were but three eye witnesses to the murder, each of whom testified in full. There was a fourth witness who saw and heard a part of what occurred at the time of the killing, who also testified fully. The appellant and these four witnesses were Mexicans. The appellant himself testified. All of these Mexicans testified through an interpreter.

There are certain uncontroverted facts borne out by the whole record and shown by the testimony of the appellant as well as other witnesses, to this effect: The appellant was married to the deceased about four months prior to the time she was killed. Before they married, appellant claimed she had been kept by a white man at Taylor, Williamson county, for some time. Upon their marriage they moved to the country several miles from Taylor, where he worked on a farm and at various other things for about four months. For some reason, undisclosed, but without any special cause from the appellant, she became dissatisfied, and wanted to return to Taylor, and did so. The appellant went with her to some station near Taylor and put her on the train, and he returned to the country. In a day or two thereafter he also went to Taylor, and had an interview with her in the evening when he first reached Taylor, some five or six days before the killing. He also saw her again that night. He did not stay with her while there. He claimed that the man who had kept her before had also seen her while she was there, and he knew this. After they had both been at Taylor for a few days, she went from Taylor on the Katy train, Sunday, just after noon, to the little town of Circleville, a railroad station, near Taylor, called there to attend one of said state's witnesses who had just been confined. The appellant learned this Monday morning, and just 24 hours after she left Taylor for Circleville he went from Taylor on the train to Circleville, the train arriving at Circleville between 1 and 2 o'clock Monday, the day of the killing. The appellant owned a pistol which he had had for some time before he went to Taylor, and took it to Taylor with him in his grip. After getting to Taylor on Monday, he bought some cartridges for his pistol. Just before he took the train, he went into one of the saloons and took a few glasses of beer. While there the saloon keeper, who waited on him, saw him with the pistol, and he at that time loaded it, and took it with him to Circleville. The witness for the state, above referred to, named Sabino Pachiko, went on the train with him from Taylor to Circleville. This witness, and the appellant also, testified that just before getting to Circleville the appellant asked the witness if the toilet on the railroad coach was open, and, when assured that it was, he went into it and took his pistol, and placed it in his bosom. This witness and appellant both got off of the train when it stopped at Circleville. The said witness was one of the section hands of the railroad, and he at once went from the train to the closet, and on that account did not see nor hear all that occurred between the appellant and his wife at the time she was killed, but he did see and hear a part of what occurred between them at that time.

A Mexican woman, one of said witnesses who saw and heard all that occurred from the time the appellant reached Circleville until after the appellant killed his wife and fled, testified as follows: "My name is Lorenza Sifuntez. During last May and June I lived there at the depot at Circleville. I lived there only about 15 days. I know the defendant, Pedro Zunago. The day he came out there was the first time I ever saw him or knew him. He came there on the train, and got there at about 1:40. I don't know exactly at what time the train came in. I knew Lula Zunago. I became acquainted with her on the day she and a woman by the name of Mazina and I got on the train together. As to where Lula is now, that man over there [points to defendant] killed her. He killed her with a pistol. When the defendant first got there, he went right on into the room. He didn't ask to come into the room. He told Lula that he wanted her to leave there, and Lula said it was heap easier for him to kill her than it was for him to take her away from there. I don't know where he wanted to take Lula, but he wanted her to leave from there. She asked him if that was what he came there for, and he told her it was. I told the defendant not to do anything to Lula there in that room, because my children were in there. The defendant didn't say anything to that. Pedro was out there jerking Lula around, and he had his gun in his hand, and I went out there and tried to defend Lula. The defendant had his pistol in his hand, and he jerked Lula outside the house, and told her that he came to kill her. Lula begged him not to kill her. Lula had no knife or pistol or anything. She had just got up from the bed. I don't know where he shot her, but her mouth was bloody. I did not hear more than three shots. I was scared, because my whole family was there. I did not hear Lula say anything after she was shot. I didn't hear anything at all I was so scared. I did not see Lula fall. There was another man there besides us. He came there on the train. The defendant asked this other man if he came there to defend this woman, and he told him not to come up there; that, if he did, he would shoot him. The name of that other man is Sabino Pachiko. He did not live there, but came there to work on that same section. The defendant left there shortly after the killing. He went right off, with a grip or valise in his hand. He was running when he left there. He had the grip in one hand and the gun in the other. By gun I mean a pistol. As to whether he went down the road or through the woods, he went along the railroad. The little boy who was in here awhile ago is my boy. He is nine years old, going into ten. He can speak English a little." Cross-examination: "As to the first thing Pedro did when he came up there, I will say that he went right into the house and called the lady, and he told her he wanted her to leave. I do not know where he wanted her to go. I don't know whether he said he wanted her to go to Taylor. Lula told him then that it was heap easier for him to kill her than it was for him to take her away from there. That occurred in the same room where I was. All three of us women were there in the same room where this occurred. After Lula told him it was easier for him to kill her than take her away, he jerked Lula outdoors. Lula was in the same room I was in when he jerked her outdoors, and I caught hold of her, and begged him not to hurt her. He pulled the pistol when he went outdoors. I don't know what Pedro said when I asked him not to hurt Lula. When Pedro started outdoors, he grabbed Lula by the head and commenced hitting her, and said that is what he come for—to kill her. When the first shot was fired, I was in the door. Pedro and Lula were not very far away from me at that time—about as far as from here to the stove. [Distance from witness to stove about 10 or 12 feet.] Lula was down, sitting down, and he was hitting her with the pistol. She got down when he jerked her out there. She fell down as he jerked her out there. Pedro was the one that had hold of the gun. Lula never had hold of it. She did not have hold of the front end of the gun. I didn't pay any attention to the gun, can't say whether it was a white gun or a black gun, or what color gun it was. As to the number of shots that were fired, I heard three. I stood there all the time—stood still. I didn't pay much attention to the number of shots because I was so scared. I don't know who dressed the woman's body after she was dead. They picked her up and carried her to Taylor. I went out and looked at the woman's body after she was shot, but didn't see where the bullet hit. All I saw was that her mouth was torn up. When the defendant went down the railroad track, he went towards Granger. I did not hear him say anything after the shooting. Lula did not say anything to me about Pedro on the day she was killed. Pedro did not say anything to Lula abount signing a paper of any kind when he came there. I don't know whether he said anything to her about getting a divorce or not. Lula had been at the house there for about 24 hours." Redirect examination: "I reckon Lula came out there from Taylor. Lula did not say a word after she was shot. Lula did not move after she was shot. She died right away. The American people came there and got Lula's body. I did not see anybody touch...