Case ID: tex-crim_147/html/0186-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Presiding Judge. KRUEGER, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

APRIL 26, 1944
    Hoyel Brown v. The State.
    No. 22795.
    Delivered March 15, 1944.
    Rehearing Denied April 26, 1944.
    
      The opinion states the case.
    
      M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant.
    
      Ernest S. Goens, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of killing his father, Sidney Brown, punishment being assessed at twenty-five years in the penitentiary.

A number of bills of exception are found in the record. Some are incomplete, and none of them seems to present a serious question.

Apparently appellant and his wife had separated and she was living with her two small children in a house which she had rented. The killing occurred just in front of this hpuse. Neighbors heard appellant curse his father and tell him to get up and put his clothes*on which deceased did, and stepped out of the house and told some of the neighbors to call the officers, that something had to be done with appellant. In a few minutes a shot was fired and deceased was killed. Appellant claimed that he killed his father because he caught deceased and appellant’s wife in a compromising position which led him to believe that they had already engaged in an act of intercourse, or were about to do so. It would accomplish no good purpose to detail the evidence at length. Appellant’s evidence brought the case under Art. 1220 P. C. which justifies a killing “when committed by the husband upon one taken in the act of adultery with the wife, provided the killing táke place before the parties to the act havé separated.”

The trial court gave a liberal and comprehensive charge upon the defensive issue. Evidently the jury discredited appellant’s story.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for a rehearing but he fails to point out any error or oversight committed by this court in the original opinion, nor does he present any matter not heretofore discussed by us. Under the circumstances - stated, there is nothing presented for review.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.