Case ID: sw_287/html/0256-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MINOR v. STATE.
    (No. 10251.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 13, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1137(3)— Exception to refusal to charge that defendant in murder case, upon being informed of deceased’s threats, had right to arm self and demand explanation held not to present error, in view of court’s qualification of bill.
    Refusal to charge that defendant, on hearing from wife that threats had been made against him by deceased, had right to arm self and demand explanation held not erroneous, in view of court’s qualification of bill that defendant disclaimed intention of arming for said purpose, and that no limitation was placed on defendant's right of self-defense by trial court.
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;>337(5).
    Testimony that defendant in murder case was under indictment for felony held admissible as affecting his credibility as witness.
    3. Witnesses <&wkey;374(2).
    Declaration of witness for defendant, made in absence of defendant, that he and defendant were going to kill deceased held admissible to impeach witness.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Upshur County ; R. T. Brown, Judge.
    Ned Minor was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    M. B. Briggs and Briggs & Davis, all of Gilmer, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is murder, and the punishment is 30 years in the penitentiary.

Bill No. 1 is a repetition of .appellant’s motion for a new trial, embracing every ground of objection which appellant urged in the case. This bill shows no error. Nugent v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 273 S. W. 598; Leto v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 143 S. W. 184 Cabral v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 122 S. W. 872.

By bills Nos. 2 and 3 complaint is made at the. court’s refusal to instruct the jury that, if appellant’s wife informed him of a threat made against him by deceased, he had a right to arm himself and go and demand an explanation. The court qualified these bills by stating that appellant disclaimed any intention of arming himself for said purpose, and besides, the charge discloses that no limitation was placed upon appellant’s right of self-defense by the trial court. Under these conditions no error is manifest by these bills.

Bills Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 9 relate to the admission and rejection of testimony, but in each instance they fail to show what the answer of the witness to the questions propounded would have been. In this condition of the record the bills cannot bfe considered.

By bill No. 12 complaint was made because the state was permitted to prove that the appellant was under indictment for a felony. ■ This testimony was admissible as bearing upon the credibility of appellant as a witness. Wright v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 534, 281 S. W. 864 (opinion rendered March 17, 1926). See, also, Branch’s Ann. P. C. § 167.

Another bill complains at the court’s action in permitting the constable to testify that one Morris Minor had stated to the constable that he and defendant were going to kill deceased that night; the objection being that the statement was made in the appellant’s absence. The court qualifies this bill by stating that this testimony was offered for impeachment purposes only, and was so limited in the court’s charge. Under the unbroken line of decisions in this state it is always permissible to prove animus of the witness. This is never regarded as irrelevant or immaterial, and we think it clearly admissible to show that the witness Morris Minor bad made threats against the life of the deceased as bearing upon his animus as a witness in this case.

We have carefully examined the other qúes-tions presented, and believe that none of them show reversible error. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

PER CURIAM. 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. 
      <S&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes