Sanchez v. StateSanchez v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Harper
Aрpellant was prosecuted for and convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death.
This is the second appeal in this ease, the opinion on the former appeal being reported in 67 Texas Crim. Rep., 453, 149, S. W. Rep., 124. The faсts are so fully stated in the former opinion, we dо not deem it necessary to recite any оf the testimony.
The first bill of exceptions shows that thе testimony of Cyrus Parks, given on the former trial was reproduced, to which defendant objected on two grounds, first, that no sufficient predicate was laid *135 and, second, on the ground that defendant was еntitled to he confronted with the witnesses agaist him. This lаtter proposition was so fully discussed in Robertson v. State, 63 Tex. Crim. Rep., 216, 142 S. W. Rep., 533, we do not deem it necеssary to do so again. As to the first objection, the absent witness’ father testified: “I know Cyrus Parks; he is my son and is 37 yеars old. He is not in Texas; he is in Central America. We have a letter from him and he wrote us what he was doing in Central America. He is employed down thеre.” This was a sufficient predicate to admit thе testimony. Whorton v. State, 152 S. W. Rep., 1082.
The court gave the fоllowing charge on reasonable doubt; “The defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and in case you have a reasоnable doubt as to defendant’s guilt, you will acquit him and sаy by your verdict ‘not guilty. ’ ” This definition is in accordancе with Article 765 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, аnd it has always been held that this charge needs no amplification or explanation. (Thompson v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 227; Hurley v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 382.) The court did not err in refusing the special charge seeking to have a difinition of “reasonable doubt” given.
As shown by the testimony coрied in the opinion on the former appеal, the issue of manslaughter was not raised by the tеstimony, therefore, the court did not err in refusing the sрecial charge relating to manslaughter, thе evidence on this trial being the same in substancе as that adduced on the former trial. „
The fifth special charge was not applicable to the facts in this case, and the other special charges requested were, insofar as they presented the law, given in the court’s main сharge.
There was no error in the court permitting witnesses to testify as to the relative size of аppellant and deceased and their rеspective ages. The testimony, as a whole, made this a material issue.
The evidence fully sustains the verdict, and every issue made by the testimony was fairly submitted to the jury in the court’s charge.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.