Case Name: Levi Underwood v. The State of Texas
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 389
Docket Number: 
Parties: Levi Underwood v. The State of Texas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 389–392

Head Matter:
Levi Underwood v. The State of Texas.
Where the accused was pursued by the deceased on horseback, who overtook him, with pistol in hand, and the accused, while still under flight, shot his pursuer, the evidence was wholly insufficient to warrant a verdict of murder in the second degree.
Where the evidence is wholly insufficient to convict, the court should have granted a new trial.
Appeal from Collin. The case was tried before Hon. R. S. Waddell, one of the district judges.
Levi Underwood was indicted for the murder of Thomas Spain. The case turned upon the facts, and they were substantially as follows: Routh, a witness for the State, had met the accused in the morning at the spring, near the house of the witness. The accused rode on the road leading to Pilot Point, in Denton county. Witness rode to his house, and, while unsaddling his horse, the deceased, Thomas Spain,' rode up and inquired for Underwood. Learning that he was ‘on the road to Pilot Point, he invited the witness to ride with him. They came within three hundred yards of Underwood, after riding about four miles; Underwood left the road; Spain drew his pistol and gave chase; Routh, the witness, pursued also, but was soon left three hundred yards behind by the fleeter horse of Spain. Spain overtook Underwood.
" Spain’s pistol seemed to' have missed fire. , Underwood fired and killed Spain, and .continued his flight, still whipping his horse with a lariat. Several witnesses proved material parts of these facts. Sundry instructions were asked on both sides, and the court gave a long charge. But the case appeared to the court to be one so palpably of excusable homicide in defense of life,. against a fierce and deadly assault, that the whole decision turned upon the refusal to grant a new trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and assessed the punishment to twenty years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. Judgment was rendered, but no sentence was passed; because of the appeal by the accused. .
John J. Good, for the appellant,
reviewed the facts and made the following points:
The 1st and 2d assignments are, that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence.
That appellant was guilty of murder in neither the first nor second degree does "seem to me too plain for argument. (Penal Code, Art. 607-608; Lander v. The State, 12 Tex., 481; Atchinson v. The State, 20 Tex., 532-533.)
That he was justified in taking the life of his assailant seems equally plain. (Penal Code, Art. 567-568—sub. 1 and 2—569, 570, 571, 572; Lander v. The State, 12 Tex., 476-479.)
The 5th assignment is, the court erred in refusing the charges asked by defendant.
The 1st and 2d charges asked are not embraced in the general charge of the court. They are the law, and should have been given. (Penal Code, Art. 11; Code of Crim. Pro., Art. 640.)
And the same may be said of the 3d and 4th charges asked by defendant. (Penal Code, Art. 47-48.)
Geo. Flournoy, Attorney General, for the State.
—The charge of the court substantially stated the law as applicable to the case. The statement of facts is very brief for a cause of this magnitude. I respectfully invite the court to them as stated in the record. I cannot state the facts with much greater brevity than they are stated in the transcript. I shall not discuss them, or express any opinion upon them, since it is not my province to determine the cause.
I am satisfied that after the court has examined the record they will appreciate the propriety of my not discussing the cause at greater length.

Opinion:
Bell, J.
—We deem it unnecessary in this case to notice either the instructions given by the court to the jury, or those asked by the counsel for the appellant and refused by the court. The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury, and the motion for a new trial ought to have been maintained by the court below. The case is not one of a conflict of evidence, but it is one in which the evidence is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the party accused.
The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.
Reversed and remanded.