*1 546 actually
against Liberty County prejudice a him in way of the tried the ac- found its into box appears shown. cused. No error until this has been Jones v. State, 248, (2d) R. 240 771. Cr. S. W. grows complaint of the fact that letter last out comparison jail him in with
written was used as basis bought pistol pawn shop used the records of the where he in the murder under name. a fictitious Ferguson State, 152, 465, signed accused, appearance under held an while bond might arrest and without used for notice bond, might purpose used as a basis handwriting Ferguson comparison. The case would authorize admissibility of the evidence herein. It will be noted incriminatory. the letter itself Jones v. See (2d) Tex. Cr. 243 S. W. 848.
Remaining disposed properly convinced that we of this cause originally, appellant’s
Arthur Green v. State. June Rehearing Denied October Reed, Judge Presiding. Hon. Louis B. Outlaw, Post,
N. C. George Blackburn, Attorney, Austin, P. for the state. State’s DAVIDSON, Judge. *2 malice; punish-
The for murder conviction is without the ment, years penitentiary. five in the reported appeal
The former of case will found in this be S. 2d 775. W. questions presented review, In view of the deemed is say killing sufficient to that the occurred as of and the result argument resulting inflicting in the appellant course an a stab wound under left knife arm of deceased with a deadly weapon per shown to abe se. theory
The defensive was self-defense and accident. placed Appellant reputation being peace- his issue law-abiding citizen, proof. able and same Complaint refusing made the action of the trial court charge jury, testimony, to in connection with “such such by you evidence is to be considered evidence in as other determining guilt whether or not of the defendant has been beyond words, appel- established reasonable doubt.” requested lant testimony instructed as to good determining reputation his was to considered in his guilt or innocence. Obviously, Reputation upon such is not the law. is based hearsay, Specific and does not fact. acts establish good be shown on prove examination of witnesses-in-chief or to reputation. bad Prater Cr. R. charge correctly jury, The trial court refused to thus requested.
as Appellant complains of action of the trial court in re- fusing charge special submitting accident, his the defense as strength also the parties. relative and size of the charge Our examination of the court’s main shows that the charges given. charges requested erroneous, If were were were invited charge, only weAs read the trial court’s murder without submitted, expressly malice restricted to assessing two less than nor more punishment of not penitentiary. years’ confinement in the five therefore, appellant agree, with the are unable to contrary, jury. To the malice was submitted murder with injured thereby submitted, his appellant was not if such was punishment for that offense. assessed appearing, judgment is affirmed. error
No reversible Opinion approved by court. APPELLANT’S REHEARING.
ON MOTION FOR Judge. BEAUCHAMP, *3 presented
Appellant’s rehearing, ably oral motion support argument, case does insists that evidence finding of intent to commit the murder. said in 165 S.W. Ammann v. may 2d 744: the instrument used “Such intent inferred when committing weapon. weapon deadly If the assault ais deadly, part used is not the intent kill on the of the accused surrounding facts be ascertained from and shown and circumstances.” doctor, view of the as to evidence of the who testified arm, vicinity pit
location of the wound under heart, and the and extent thus inflicted of the wound bleeding causing if likelihood of it within ten minutes death stopped, question think of intent raised finding. in its Other not be treated discussed in the motion need matters Appellant’s further. Ivey
Grady v. State. 5, 1951. December February 20, Rehearing Denied Rehearing Denied Motion for Second April (Without Opinion) Written States, by Supreme Appeal Court United Dismissed 13, 1952. October