Case Name: HAMILTON v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-11-15
Citations: 141 S.W. 966
Docket Number: 
Parties: HAMILTON v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 141
Pages: 966–968

Head Matter:
HAMILTON v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 15, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, Dec. 20, 1911.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Criminal Law (§ 1095 ) — Appeal—Bill of Exceptions — Time of Filing.
Where the term at which accused was convicted ended by adjournment April 26th, bills of exception filed June 3d will be stricken from the record.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2847; Dec. Dig. § 1095. ]
2. Homicide (§ 340 ) —Appeal — Harmless Error —Instructions.
Error in submitting the issue of second degree murder was harmless, if the facts did not raise the issue of manslaughter and authorized a verdict of first degree murder.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 715-720; Dec. Dig. § 340. ]
3. Homicide (§ 304 ) — Instructions—Issues —Sufficiency.
The court instructed, in a homicide case, that if accused was mistaken as to the gun from which the fatal shot was fired being loaded, and such mistake did not arise from a want of due care by him, when he shot decedent, the jury should acquit. Accused testified that he did not shoot decedent intentionally and did not know that the gun was loaded, Held, that the instruction did not sufficiently -submit the issue of accidental homicide, which was raised by accused’s evidence.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Homicide, ■Cent. Dig. § 636; Dec. Dig. § 304. ]
4. Homicide (§ 74 ) — Negligent Homicide.
If accused obtained and took a gun from the rack and pointed it at decedent and pulled the trigger without knowing that it was loaded, he would not be guilty of negligent homicide in the first degree.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 97-101; Dec. Dig. § 74. ]
5. Criminal Law (§ 825 ) — Instructions— Reasonable Doubt — Sufficiency.
Where the court instructed that the burden was upon the state to establish guilt by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that accused was presumed innocent until his guilt was so established, and if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to his guilt they should acquit, failure to instruct on reasonable doubt as to each issue submitted was not reversible error in the absence of a request for such instruction.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2005; Dec. Dig. § 825. ]
6. Criminal Law (§ 957 ) — Verdict — Impeachment.
Jurors cannot impeach their verdict by showing that, they misunderstood an instruction.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law. Cent. Dig. §§ 2392-2395; Dec. Dig. § 957. ]
Appeal from District Court, Sabine County; W. B. Powell, Judge.
Archie Hamilton was convicted of second •degree murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Goodrich & Lewis, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
For other cases see same topic'aiKl section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was indicted, charged with murder, and when( tried he was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at 10 years in the penitentiary.
The Assistant Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, because the transcript does not contain the sentence or final judgment of the court. We have carefully examined the transcript, and, it not containing the final judgment of the •court sentencing appellant, the motion must be sustained.
Dismissed.