Case Name: Horace Keith v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-05-04
Citations: 89 Tex. Crim. 264
Docket Number: No. 6098
Parties: Horace Keith v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 264–272

Head Matter:
Horace Keith v. The State.
No. 6098.
Decided May 4, 1921.
Rehearing granted June 8, 1921.
1. —Maiming—Final Sentence—Practice on Appeal.
Where the record failed to show that final sentence was passed on appellant, this court is without jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.. However, the appeal is re-instated after the error was corrected, and is now decided on its merits.
2. —Same—Continuance—Motion for New Trial—Affidavit.
Where the motion for new trial was supported by the affidavits of the absent witnesses denying that they would give the testimony set out in the motion for continuance, there was no error in overruling same.
3. —Same—Tooth—Maiming—Charge of Court—Practice in Trial Court.
A front tooth is a member of the body within the comprehension of the maiming statute, and it was therefore no error in the court’s charge in instructing the jury that if they found from the evidence that defendant made an assault on the injured party, and wilfully and maliciously knocked out three of his front teeth, they should find him guilty. Following High v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 545; Distinguishing Slattery v. State, 41 Texas, 620, and other cases.
4. —Same—Simple Assault—Charge of Court—Requested Charge.
Where the issue was that the injured party was maimed by defendant, who knocked out three of his front teeth, there was no error in refusing the requested charge on simple assault. Distinguishing Key v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 642.
5. —Same—Premeditated Design—Intent—Charge of Court—Rule Stated.
If the maiming was actually committed and was with evil intent and without justification, the same would be punishable, whether or not there was any specific intent or premeditated design to maim, and there was no error in the court’s failure to charge on the question of intent and premeditated design. Following Davis v. State, 22 Texas Crim. App., 50, and other cases.
6. —Same—Self-Defense—Charge of Court—Uncontrollable Rage.
Where, upon trial of maiming, there was no evidence with reference to uncontrollable rage, etc., which rendered defendant incapable of cool reflection, and there was no request for such charge and the court had fully submitted self-defense, there was no reversible error.
7. —Same—Evidence—Threats—Proximity to Scene of Difficulty.
Where, upon trial of maiming, the State’s witness testified to a threat made by the defendant, an objection was made to said testimony that it was not reasonably apparent that the injured party was meant, but the record on appeal showed that the remarks by defendant were made shortly before the difficulty and in proximity to the place of the difficulty, there was no reversible error. Distinguishing Briscoe v. State, 87 Texas Crim. Rep., 375.
8. —Same—Evidence—Motive—Acts of Injured Party.
Where, upon trial of maiming, it appeared from the evidence that the difficulty arose from some testimony which the injured party gave against the defendant with reference to a shipment of intoxicating liquor, there was no error in admitting the testimony of the injured party that he was called before the Federal Grand Jury as a witness against the defendant, and other testimony with reference to the motive of the defendant.
9. —Same—Evidence—Moral Turpitude—Felony—Misdemeanor.
Whether one has been indicted for a felony may be asked him when on the witness stand, and the fact that when objection thereto is overruled, he answers that he was indicted for a misdemeanor does not make the question erroneous, as defendant was not compelled to make such answer.
10. —Same—Evidence—Testimony Favorable to Defendant.
Where the testimony objected to would rather show that defendant was a peace maker and was favorable to him, there was no reversible error.
11. —Same—Rehearing—Explanation—Charge of Court.
There was no error in refusing to instruct the jury touching defendant’s right to seek the injured party for an explanation. Such instruction is only required in cases in which the court in his charge qualifies the right of. the accused to act in self-defense. Following Williford v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 393, and other cases.
12. —Same—Threats—Communicated Threats—Charge of Court.
Where upon trial of maiming, defendant testified that he was informed that the injured party threatened to cut his guts out, and that shortly thereafter he saw the latter and asked for an explanation, and that the difficulty then began after the injured party had made a demonstration, this in connection with other testimony with reference to said threats demanded a charge on communicated threats, and a refusal of same was reversible error. Following Sims v. State, 9 Texas Crim. App., 593.
IS.—Same—Affidavits—Motion for New Trial—Practice on Appeal.
The issue raised from the testimony of defendant delivered upon the trial in the presence of the jury cannot be eliminated by an ex parte affidavit attached to the State’s pleading controverting the allegations of fact contained in the motion for new trial. Besides, affidavits filed after the trial and after the order overruling the motion for new trial have no place in the record on appeal.
Appeal from the District Court of Kaufman. Tried below before the Honorable Joel R. Bond.
Appeal from a conviction of maiming; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
■ The opinion states the case.
Wynne & Wynne, for appellant.—Cited cases in opinion.
R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Kaufman County of the offense of maiming, and his punish- merit fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of five years.
An inspection of the record discloses the fact that same shows no sentence to have been passed upon the appellant. In this condition of the record this court would appear to be without jurisdiction, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
Dismissed.