82 Tenn. 439 | Tenn. | 1884
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant was indicted for the murder of his own child, a little girl of about seven or eight years. The indictment charged that the defendant did with sticks, switches, leather straps, clubs, rocks, bludgeons •and cudgels, unlawfully, etc., strike, beat, bruise, and wound the deceased upon the head, breast, back, arms and body, giving to her divers wounds, etc., and from which it was averred that she died. The prisoner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and has appealed to this court.
On the trial the State proved that the defendant had been in the habit of cruelly and inhumanly whip
There was other evidence in the cause tending to show neglect and exposure of the child by defendant as well as cruel abuse, to all of which the defendant objected, because the' same was not alleged in the indictment, but the objection was overruled by the court, and the testimony permitted to go to the jury, as the record states, as competent for the purpose of showing malice on part of the defendant towards the deceased child. We think, the testimony was admissible for that purpose. And in his charge his Honor instructed the jury that they could not look to it for any other as against the defendant, but they might look to it in exoneration of the defendant if they were satisfied that was the sole cause which produced the disease of which the child died.
It was also objected that all the evidence was inadmissible under the frame of the indictment, as the
The court, among other things not excepted to, charged the jury as follows: “If you find that the child died from pleuro-pneumonia, you will consider what gave it this disease. The pleuro-pneumonia will be the immediate cause of its death. This being a natural cause of death, the prisoner cannot be held responsible for it, unless his unlawful acts, as charged in the indictment, that is the whipping or beating, were a material contributing cause of this disease. In •other words, if he unlawfully assaulted and beat the child, and this alone, or operating efficiently with other causes, brought on the attack of pleuro-pneumonia, .then he will be criminally liable for its death. For •in this event his unlawful acts will be the cause, or
In Rex v. Squire and Wife, where the husband and wife were jointly indicted for the murder- of an apprentice by unlawfully beating and starving it, the death of the child was proved to have been'' caused by starvation, and for which the wife was not responsible, it Avas held to be a proper subject of inquiry as to her whether or not the beating, of which the wife was guilty, had contributed to cause the death: 1 Russ, on Crimes, 490, note 6. These authorities, we think, in principle, fully sustain the charge of the court above cited, and which was correct.
The defendant, before the jury was charged, presented a number of specific charges which he requested the court to give, a part of which were embraced in his general charge and a portion omitted. After the charge was given, defendant again presented them, and again requested the court to charge them, or specify his reasons upon them for his refusal. This the court declined because he had. included portions of them in his charge as delivered, and they were not prepared or presented as required by the act of the Legislature. We think his Honor was correct in this, and besides, none of them, except such as were embodied in the charge as given, were correct legal propositions. As appears in the transcript, the court in defining the different grades of homicide in one part of his charge, gave a correct definition of involuntary manslaughter as voluntary manslaughter. This is in
There being no error in the record, the judgment must be affirmed.