Case Name: FRAZER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-06-25
Citations: 268 S.W. 164
Docket Number: No. 7764
Parties: FRAZER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 268
Pages: 164–166

Head Matter:
FRAZER v. STATE.
(No. 7764.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 25, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1925.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;404(4) —■ Blood-stained clothing of decedent held admissible.
Blood-stained clothing tending to controvert the version of defendant as to the position of deceased when she killed him held admissible in evidence.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>l 137(3) — Error cannot be predicated on court’s withdrawal of manslaughter charge at request of accused.
Where accused charged with murder objects to an instruction on manslaughter, error cannot be predicated on the court’s withdrawal of the issue of manslaughter.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;> 1090(14) — Refusal of charges not excepted to not reviewable.
Refusal of special charges to which no exception was taken, either by notation thereon or by separate bills of exception, held to present no question for review.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;857(2)— Jurors may properly discuss facts in light of their own experience.
Jurors in weighing evidence may properly discuss the facts in the light of their own individual experiences, without offending against the rule that the case must he determined upon the evidence.
5. Criminal law <©=»857(2)'—Jurors’ discussion of powder burns in light of personal experience held not prejudicial error.
Discussion by jurors in murder trial as to the distance at which a weapon must be held to cause powder burns, in which one juror expressed an opinion derived from his personal experience, held not to bring any new or hurtful facts into case.
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County ; W. D. Howe, Judge.
Mrs. G. W. Frazer was convicted of murder, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
S. D. Stennis, of Dallas, and Owen & Bridgers, of El Paso, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted
in the district court of El Paso county of murder, and her punishment fixed at 10 years in the penitentiary.
Appellant was convicted for the murder of her husband, and there appears no dispute of the fact that she shot and killed him in their apartment in El Paso on May 31, 1922. The state proved the killing, and a number of threats made by appellant to kill deceased. The defensive theory was that of self-defense. We see no good end to be attained by a recital of the facts.
There is but one bill of exceptions which presents appellant's complaint of the introduction in evidence of the clothes of deceased, worn by him at the time of the shooting. There is found in the testimony of the appellant on the stand her statement that at the time she shot deceased he was facing her. There seems no doubt that the clothing presented evidence of the fact that several of the shots were fired at an angle. In such case the rule seems to be that, when the introduction of the clothing tends to solve any controverted issue in the case, it is admissible to go before the jury. The bill under discussion is qualified by the learned trial judge, with the statement that it was the contention of the state that deceased was shot while sitting down or stooping over, polishing or about to polish his shoes, and that all of the gunshot wounds were inflicted while he was in that position, and that the clothing in evidence served to illustrate and solve the question of the relative positions of the parties, and tended to contradict the statement of appellant as to how the shooting took place. We are of opinion that said bill of exceptions presents no error.
Upon the presentation of an objection' to the court's charge because it submitted the law of manslaughter, the learned trial judge accepted the view of. appellant's counsel, and rewrote said charge, omitting therefrom the law of manslaughter.
Two special charges were presented to the court and refused. Neither by notation' on same, nor by separate' bills of exception, is there complaint of the refusal of said charges.
Being of opinion that the evidence amply justified the Verdict of the jury, and that the record reflects no error, an affirmance will be ordered.
c&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<S=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes