Case ID: sw2d_91/html/0350-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CHRISTIAN, Judge. PER CURIAM. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAWRENCE v. STATE.
    No. 17827.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 15, 1936.
    Rehearing Denied March 4, 1936.
    
      E. E. Fuller, of Houston, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for four years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought, killed Mann Mimms by shooting him with a gun.

The homicide occurred on the 19th of June, 1933, at a negro celebration. According to the testimony of the state, appellant and George Syphret each shot deceased; appellant using a pistol, and Sy-phret a shotgun. The state’s testimony was to the effect that deceased was making no demonstration at the time he was shot and that he was unarmed. Appellant did not testify in his own behalf, but introduced witnesses who testified that deceased was attacking appellant at the time the fatal shots were fired.

• The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the conviction. No bills of exception are brought forward.

The judgment is 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.

On Motion for. Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant seeks to bring before us by means of their affidavits the proposition that certain jurors who sat upon the trial of his case were influenced in the jury room by statements which they deemed to reflect upon appellant. This court cannot consider original ex parte affidavits made by witnesses or jurors and attached to a motion for rehearing such as here appears. The matters contained in said affidavits are now here attempted to be set up for the first time. Examination of the original motion for new trial in the court below makes plain the fact that no such matters were brought before the trial court. This court is in no sense a nisi prius court, and all matters such as those above referred to must be presented to the trial court in the first instance, failing in which they can only be presented to the chief executive, who has pardoning power.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.