Case Name: Ex parte TINDALL
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1929-02-27
Citations: 15 S.W.2d 24
Docket Number: No. 12486
Parties: Ex parte TINDALL.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 15
Pages: 24–25

Head Matter:
Ex parte TINDALL.
(No. 12486.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 27, 1929.
H. L. Edwards, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.
Albert Thomas, Co. Atty., Jack Varner, and Adams & McAlister, all of Nadogdoehes, and A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CHRISTIAN, J.
The appeal is from an order denying bail. Appellant is charged by complaint with the offense of murder.
Appellant shot and killed John Noel Ains-worth. Prior to the killing appellant purchased a box of 45-ealiber automatic cartridges on credit. Shortly before the homicide appellant and deceased were riding together in a truck. A witness for the state heard a shot fired and looked toward the truck. Appellant jumped from the truck and fired a shot. Deceased had two bullet wounds in the head, the entrance of one being on .the right side of the head near the eye and the , other behind the right ear. The wound near the eye showed powder burns. The other did not. State's witnesses testified that appellant stated to them shortly after the homicide: "I had to; he was trying to cut me with a knife." Pursuant to a conversation the sheriff had with appellant, a knife belonging to deceased was found in a pair.of overalls at the home of appellant. Deceased had on heavy ducking backed gloves with gauntlets on them at the time he was killed. The wife of deceased testified that, when she last saw deceased on the day he was killed, he' had in his possession a $1 bill and two dimes. After appellant was placed in jail, it was found that he had a $1 bill and two dimes. Shortly before the homicide appellant borrowed 50 cents from a friend. An examination of the effects of deceased disclosed that he had a dime in his pocket. At the time appellant was found with the money referred to, he was "shooting dice" with a prisoner in jail. It was not shown whether he had won the money from the prisoner.
If appellant's statement relative to the homicide be rejected, we have an unexplained killing. It is true that a witness testified to having seen appellant fire a shot at the time deceased was killed, but no witness testified to the facts and circumstances leading up to the killing. Ex parte Cole, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 230 S. W. 175; Ex parte Feray, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 645, 279 S. W. 470. The testimony before us does not make evident the fact that upon a trial a fair jury, considering such testimony, would inflict the death penalty.
The burden is on the state to show that accused is not entitled to bail; otherwise, he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Article 1, § 11, Constitution of Texas; Ex parte Powell, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 648, 298 S. W. 575. There being a failure on the part of the state to discharge the burden resting upon it, we must hold that the court committed error in denying bail.
The judgment denying bail is reversed, and bail granted in the sum of $10,000.
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.