*1 foregoing- opinion Appeals has the Commission Judges Appeals been examined of the Court of Criminal approved by the Court. Charlie Edwards v. The State. denied March states the case. Davis, Angle- Carlos B. Masterson and F. Cleveland
ton, appellant. for Lloyd Davidson, Attorney, Austin, W. State’s for the State. Graves, charged murder, . The offense punishment fixed death. Edwards, negro, charged
Charlie with the unlawful Edwards, of Annie his divorced wife. It the record that the entered a arraignment to the indictment in that the court received such at that time. In the course of trial introduced certain relative killing, of his mind at the condition time of the as well as before such and after the had himself taken the trial stand and testified the jury, and, upon appellant’s refusal to enter from the him, pro- entered such jury, relative
ceeded to *2 of the insanity time of the commission appellant’s of the at the testimony: alleged quote own offense. from May happened of exactly the 10th “I don’t what on know sir my- killed, year I wasn’t of this at the time she was self; By ‘spell,’ I mean spell I had some kind of or another. twice, outfit; spell crazy a but I had that kind of some kind of a pretty since day; while back not twice that it had been a up fall when spells; it had been I had had one of them before, along spell up in the cold time. had the having them spells, I had been what’s the cause of them but something home, think; somebody to me my did before I left years drink, people ago; gave some me some kind of stuff that, they at that time that did claimed in the bottom down Really know sir who they I don’t put kind of dust on me. they put me, I don’t know where put that dust on party put the dust me; of the did not know the name on man me, that would make a the kind of a stuff on go it was head, my had kind like; slipped and I crazy the dust on' ran; got that; burning spell; I don’t know who of a that; there, that I remember about- away is all put was; man that a hoodoo that was know when don’t me; Jones did not a Jones. was fellow called later, dust on put not and he did put any dust on me of that spell my at the time I had a time I shot wife. on me at the then, something on me wife; have had I think I must it, myself I done I know wasn’t.” when I wasn’t at stand, McCoy and he placed Adam on ap- peculiar testimony actions of relative to detailed some pellant saying, finally by jail, and concluded confined while got all his wits.” say he ain’t is I “All I can daughter, deceased’s Julia placed his and the Appellant also among things, testified, stand, other Harris, .and she on in his real appellant] acted like was times he “And at [the kind like some of acted mind, he did sometimes crazy.” that’s one of such above recounted presentation
Upon the guilty entered theretofore so, the court en- and, upon refusal to do appellant, guilty demanded such testi- for him. As not plea of tered charge, in his proceeded incprporate mony, charge insanity the commission time of on at the of the offense. objected timely properly Such attorneys, made the basis part and is also in his correct 1. The court was the de plea, acted to such and doubtless herein relative Thompson v. time. In him at such cisions of this Court before on account was reversed such cause failing facts, to do in a of similar case actually Texas Crim. In Yantis v. this trial court did. 180, Judge “It was said: Lattimore judge, had for the learned trial tending to show if evidence introduced be offense, to have the of the of the insane at the time commission entered, pref and a withdrawn *3 counsel; but, erably by appellant would then or his if State, Taylor appellant.” effect v. the court for To the same 470, 679; Rep. Harris v. 76 88 Texas Crim. 227 S. W. 975; 126, 120 Rep. Texas Johnson Crim. 368, 274. The trial court’s Texas Crim. action in such matter was correct. main, complains, exception
Appellant’s 2 bill of No. 1, proposition in the added of the acts set forth No. with bill introducing deprived privilege the testi- that he was of his mony quoted in we have said relative to bill No. above testimony only purpose for the in that he desired to use such mitigation showing mentality appellant’s impaired and in penalty, expect and did not nor intend to utilize the same complete insanity. qualified on a such bill court ' us, satisfactory disposes in a manner to as therein of same follows: arraigned the defendant was and when
“When charging jury murder with to the to an indictment his aforethought, plead guilty accepted and the court his malice witness, plea. testi- the defendant took the stand as When insanity, clearly mony an which the court if true raised issue of jury. in to the The court could not felt should be submitted charging jury in case tell the on a this plainly appeared that the defendant was sane it to the court testimony of the defendant as reflected in view of the being question of fact in the case which record. It upon, pass felt that law submit- could not under the ting question of fact the defendant this defense, right urge insanity as a which he would not have to any way in and did not take from had on his right urge condition, him the his defective mental if it ex- isted, by way mitigation.” herein, opinion,
What we have said heretofore also exception conclusive relative to bill of No. which is over- ruled. In appellant complains charge upon court failed to the law of circumstantial evidence cause, being
in appellant contention that no saw deceased, fire the first shot at the the State rely upon had to circumstantial who fired show day first shot. The himself testified: I “On that house, wife, go my daughter’s I had not seen her shotgun laying and was not in wait her my daughter’s house; not kill her when she came out of I shot her, didn’t know I killed her. did not to kill her intend her; her; pepper shot intended to (cid:127) Boss, how come me to shoot her the second time. time, must have knowed when things shot her the first I know and some I doesn’t.” Eugene Evans saw the defendant fire the shot into second ground lay upon the deceased as she within some two or witness, time, three feet of and she was alive at that Deceased’s, daughter appealed help. she to Evans for also saw shot, appellant fire the second which was the shot that doubt- life, Evans testified: less took her “When he shot her the laid then and did not she still move more.” second cogent opinion the facts are so interwoven and In our there *4 positive relative to this and the is direct firing shots, the failure to court’s on circum- justified, and this bill is also overruled. stantial rights prop- us that this have been It guarded by judge given zealously learned erly who has rights guaranteed law, appellant all the under the judgment, accordingly duty and it to affirm is affirmed. FOR REHEARING.
ON MOTION penalty the extreme Hawkins, . Because of we have appeal. carefully re-examined the entire record on Our quite unchanged very cautious trial remains withdrawing course adopted the entering for him a and in con- guilty and submitting ques- with other issues also nection sanity. Any other course would have been tion of approved proper in contrary the cases cited original opinion. in our and was re-
Deceased had secured divorce thought so, man, ceiving of another or the attention her had been such that he had rate. His conduct towards bond, prob- peace and when warned placed under a been violating the terms of said bond had made threats result of able and the man. These threats were consum- kill deceased his divorced wife. far as concerned mated so why this no reason court should interfere discover judgment of the trial with the verdict thereunder. rehearing overruled. motion for Ferguson
T. State. denied March