Case Name: Will Murray, alias Michigan Kid, v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1904-01-20
Citations: 46 Tex. Crim. 400
Docket Number: No. 2874
Parties: Will Murray, alias Michigan Kid, v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 400–402

Head Matter:
Will Murray, alias Michigan Kid, v. The State.
No. 2874.
Decided January 20, 1904.
On Motion for Rehearing February 24, 1904.
1.—Murder—Plea of Guilty—Charge of the Court.
Where, on a plea of guilty, the evidence excludes murder in the second degree, but shows murder in the first degree, the court is not required to charge on murder in the second degree, and the tr'al is precisely the same under the plea of guilty, as under the plea of not guilty. Qualifying Sanders v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 372; Giles v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 281. Approving Blocker v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 16. Distinguishing Martin v. State, 36 Texas Crim. Rep., 632.
Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson. Tried below before Hon. W. H. Pope.
Appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree; penalty, death.
The testimony of the State discloses a case of foul murder; that deceased, a woman, was followed by defendant from place to place, where she would flee from his attacks, and finally, when she sought refuge in a neighbor’s house, defendant broke into the house, dragged her from under the bed, hit her on the head with a slat, felling her to the floor, and when she arose and begged him to desist, stabbed her twice in each side, following her out to a tram mill, where she dropped and expired. The theory of the defense was that the deceased was killed by the slashers or saws of the tram mill. Defendant plead guilty, and the only question in the case is the court’s charge.
Matt Cramer, for appellant.
The error in the charge was fundamental, because it did not allow the jury to find the degree of the homicide. The court can not deprive the jury of that power and right, by imperatively telling them to do so. Buster v. State, 42 Texas, 315; Blocker v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 16; Sanders v. State, 18 Texas Crim. App., 372; Giles v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 281.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BROOKS, Judge.
The record shows that appellant pleaded guilty to the indictment charging murder in the first degree, and after -the introduction of the evidence the jury returned a verdict of guilty, assessing his punishment at death. The plea was received after appel<. lant had been duly warned by the court as the law requires in such cases. The State introduced ample evidence to show the commission of the offense and appellant's connection therewith. In our opinion the evidence clearly demonstrates that appellant was guilty of murder in the first degree, and thoroughly authorized the extreme penally of the law. No error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ON REHEARING.
February 24, 1904.