Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-05-01
ma COURT DECISIONS
az DECISIONS REM
u'ef'fss n rms AUSTIN TERM


,,,e walton, Clerk
"a state-Appeal from
2 v, The death p eiu IN mn
of.s'g nsr,sei that a ss,,ss ,ht was
(! Iiis r,,on for an h't"g yns then
lfri'' sy defendant ~ ,.ors written
ntds y; Two letters We're ~
sayfi thAs uerson who mace the
x ths sun letters were then put
lralurs. Injection was made that
d evidence. ,sss In custody and un-
d gefsn1sp, 10 signed the appncn-
ftfred Nnst could not thus use u:
j.n ne an error IN allowing PROOF
rse was ,,ra IL was neither an
4 De 49, nor confession by Defendant
Omission ~ ACT tending to chow CUNT
h vas ~. MESSED to a Witness III
lsisnoAn., II Killed her win that
As'e "a "a do It: she was coming az
y r. Segrer and 1 had TO XIII her
b. WI ilSe" Complaint ~ made
sAis ny nsurt in charging the law oil
t1l ms ala not advise the jury
p ffdsissn1. Ian, aid not have to retreat
tii dsshr iii,pp No objection was
4 s'ola Re- chnige in this respect
( raae y and no charge upon re-
fhsn q. prsnllested. In this state OF
crAl W VI me failure 10 So charge II
y fevus' ar reversal II no injury
q ee1 FINDER the circumstances OF
no possible injury could re-
= ~ dafendant. Defendants state
~ ciear and emphatic. To the
~. shie mind It presents but one
-. MD defendant speak the
~ saving she was coming at him
s ~ dagger? No ordinary jury
w. WI ,ause TO inquire as to the pos
en,y ,he practicabllity or the obli-
s KY Ia retreat. II the jury believed
4. .s.,eu,ent TO be true he was en-
~ "a an acauittal and the Jury
ny a IN fact. told. The question of
s',rsants sanity was raised by the
sissnce. A Judgment of the county
M az Wilson county was In evil
ssrs showing that defendant had
- found insane by II jury and so
Ismdred by the court Many wit
- testified TO acts and conduct
..ling 10 prove insanity, and giving
M 6nluion that he was insane. the
ARE upon the issue OF insanity Is
btcted 10 solely upon the matter oil
,.sonable doubt. presumption ana
y burden OF proof. The charge con-
I.ns four propositions: !. The law
;sumes sanity and the burden Is IN
ae accused TO prove insanity at the
II ,na N the homicide. 9. Chronic in
unly having been shown the burden
on the state TO prove sanity at the
ne beyond Il reasonable doubt, 8.
Ii'nless chronic insanity is shown 10
.,ye existed previous to the homicide,
Aen the burden is ON the uccused to
4 rove insanity at the time of the KILL
n. l. The Judgment showing insanity
elng In evidence the burden IL upon
"A he state to prove beyond a reasonable
lubt that Il was temporary, or that
lrused had been cured. Under the
rslght Of authority and the decisions
this court, the charge was correct.
ne writer CHurt, i. j. has not as
sated to these decisions. and is of
Elnion that when the evidence raises
b issue Of insanity, there is no pre-
rmption Of law. That under all cir
instances the presumption Is one Of
att for the Jury and that unless they
xleye beyond reasonable doubt that
be accused was sane, they should
liQult There Is very cogent evidence
u insanity. but on the other hand the
Tuof Of sanity is clearly made. This
Ngrt cannot disturb the verdict. Az
lrmed. Opinion by Hurt. +. j.
t. Jim Bob Grow vs. State-From Mi
al: Murder, with life sentence. There
We no errors In the charge, with re-
iafd 70 the admission of evidence.
lhe case is one depending alone upon
afcumstantlal evidence. The district
viornsy. in his closing argument, said:
. NOW gentlemen, II you aquit this de-
ndant pointing his finger at HIND
. iol set free the foul murderer Of an
AhoeenE young girl, and the law can
ls'ef lay its hand on him again, but
you should convict him. and In so
wing should by mistake convict an
tlocent man, then he has his right
4 appeal, and the court of appeals will
s,sise The case and give the defend
uN new trial, and no injury Will
done Counsel for appellant APP
faled TO the court to stop said re-
nslxs. The court told the district at
nlnsy 10 hold a minute until defen-
= ~ counsel could state his objection
.ps court said he did not know wheth-
~, "e language was Improper or not,
! olu the district attorney to
~ 70 Tue record, which he did, max
reference to this matter again.
- an argument should not have
tolerated for a moment. 1t was
~ powerfully calculated to induce
= !ary to convict appellant. An in
sn' girl had been assassinated on
~ Her throat was cut by some
y, midnight. evidently while she
/ K, ,eep' II was natural and proper
- ne Jury to be disposed to convict
ip,s,,pttrator OF this most foul and
I nm ~ murder. And under the cir
smslances * this case a iury would
1 nlsts inclined to acquit, though there
10y Dc doubt of his guilt, yea. d
sssnaole doubt, Now, here is a way
IN ape suggested, an atonement for
1r,a, ~, rhnrder should be had-sume
sissr.s should be punished There is
: v,,,i.. against defendant, He may
% si"s. " We acqult there will be
" ca.'.ieht. no person punished. II
n nNlet wrongfully he win be In
l,s,a tsen-ouf verdict will be set
are .y the court Of appeals and no
4 WI be done. We will adopt
sttornssesuon made By the dlstric,
u dsses ,hough there may be doubt
n snnanuian guilt. and let the court
ietpn5sas settle the question whether
he sta,a was wrongfully punished
sfones,a,,lntnt that II defendant was
Ny.rsy convicted this court would
q, ie the judgment may mr. mas
me ,e rue This court must turn
4 an sn aSts to ascertain II the guilt
ALE ses,papPeilant appears with reason.
shi l. sssy II L does the iudgmen,
BE craaihi,Ia.ed. We do not pass upor
* rnein,tny OF witnesses II there
railt s,,n ing theories, one presenting
Nil ~. another Innocence. this rot,ri
ortlns reverse II the evidence sup,
ehaer nunt be sufficiently cogent IL
lease al r.sasonably certain. Ia such
e.iiuv t,haeories, excepting that pre-,
surt ,sulit, will be rejected 5y hi,
- IN The cn,n -. ,.INet.N ~ WI