Case ID: sw_298/html/0596-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORB, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

O’PRY v. STATE.
    (No. 10974.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 8, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1927.
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>829(I) — Refusing special charges covered by given charges held not error.
    It was not error to refuse special charges which were covered by the main charge and the given special charges.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Homicide <&wkey;>32 — Defendant, convicted of manslaughter before statute abolished offense, held not entitled to benefit thereof, in view of another statute (Acts 40th Leg. [1927] c. 274; Acts 40th Leg. 1st Called.Sess. [1927] c. 8).
    Where defendant was prosecuted and convicted for manslaughter before Acts 40th Leg. [1927] c. 274, abolishing the offense of manslaughter, became effective, he was not entitled to benefit of this statute by express terms of Acts 40th Leg. 1st Called Sess. [1927] c. 8, which became effective before the statute abolishing the offense became effective.
    Appeal from District Court, Titus County; It. T. Wilkinson, Judge.
    Morris O’Pry was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    I. N. Williams, of Mount Pleasant, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORB, J.

Conviction of manslaughter ; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

We find in the record no statement of facts. Appellant was charged with murder, and upon his trial was convicted as above stated. We find no exceptions to the charge of the court which present error determinable by us in the absence of a statement of facts. There are a number of special charges, some of which were given and some refused because covered by the main charge and those special charges which were given. We perceive no error in the refusal of any of said charges. Appellant contends that this conviction cannot stand because the offense of manslaughter has been repealed. The act of the Fortieth Legislature repealing the offense of manslaughter has not yet become effective.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant moves for a rehearing asserting that by the provisions of chapter 274, Acts Regular Session 40th Legislature, the offense of manslaughter, for which he was convicted, was abolished; and further that while the act had not become effective at the time this case was affirmed on original hearing, it has since gone into effect, and that he is therefore entitled to the benefit of the repeal of said manslaughter statute, and that upon this hearing we should hold that the statute under which he was convicted is no longer effective. Said act became effective June 15, 1927. We find that by an act of the Legislature which went into effect June 9, 1927, which act is chapter 8, First Galled Session, Fortieth Legislature, said chapter 274, supra, was amended so that same now specifically provides that no offense committed prior to the taking effect of said chapter 274, as originally passed by the Regular Session of the Fortieth Legislature, should be affected by the provisions of said act, but that such offender should be proceeded against and punished under the law as it existed prior to the taking effect of said chapter 274, and as if said act had never been enacted. In our opinion this act which is contained in s'aid chapter 8, supra, controls the disposition of appellant’s motion. His offense and his conviction therefore occurred prior to the act of the Legislature repealing the manslaughter statute. Prior to the final disposition of his case on appeal the Legislature, as above set out, has specifically provided that the repeal of the manslaughter statute shall not affect the disposition of cases against offenders who had offended -against or been convicted for violation of said statute prior to its repeal.

Believing ourselves bound by the provisions of the act last mentioned, and that appellant is not entitled to the relief sought, the motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      
       — ->T?nT- other cases see same topio and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes