Case Name: WREN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1924-04-30
Citations: 264 S.W. 1007
Docket Number: No. 8374
Parties: WREN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 264
Pages: 1007–1010

Head Matter:
WREN v. STATE.
(No. 8374.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 30, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1924.)
1. Criminal law <8=814 (3) — Unnecessary to submit issue not raised by testimony.
It is unnecessary to submit issues not raised by testimony.
2. Homicide <8=280 — Evidence of accidental shooting held-insufficient for jury.
In murder prosecution, evidence held insufficient to take to jury question of accidental shooting.
3. Witnesses <8=45(2)- — Admission of defendant’s seven year old child’s testimony in murder prosecution held not error.
In prosecution for wife murder, admission of defendant’s seven year old child’s testimony as to circumstances of shooting, which occurred in her presence, held not error, on ground that she was too young to know or appreciate na-' ture and quality of oath.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal' law <8=598(6) — Refusal to postpone or continue case because of lack of diligence in application, for process, not error.
Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse judgment of conviction for refusal to postpone or continue case because of lack of diligence in application .for process, by reason of defendant’s delay in arranging terms with counsel, with whom he communicated almost at once after killing.
5. Criminal law <8=595(7) — Refusal of continuance to get witness, whom defendant had not seen or talked with since homicide, held not ground for reversal.
Refusal of continuance to get witness to testify that he believed defendant temporarily insane from use of intoxicating liquor at time of homicide held not ground for reversal, where defendant had not seen or talked with such witness since homicide, and all he knew as to what witness would swear was on information and belief; source of which did not appear.
6. Criminal law <8=596(2) — Refusal of continuance to get testimony as to facts not shown by other available witnesses not ground, for reversal.
Refusal of continuance to get witness to testify that he believed defendant temporarily insane from recent use of intoxicating liquor at time of homicide held not ground for reversal, where no effort was made to prove temporary insanity by disinterested neighbors of defendant, and substantially same testimony as that expected was given, on basis of whose testimony physician, called on defendant’s be half, declined to say he believed defendant insane.
7. Criminal law <$==>! 141 (I) — 'Trial court’s ruling presumed correct until contrary shown.
Presumption'is in favor of correctness of trial court’s ruling until contrary is shown.
8. Criminal law <3=>364(5) — City marshal’s testimony as to statement by defendant shortly after shooting held material and part of res gestee.
In prosecution for wife murder, testimony of city marshal, as to defendant’s statement shortly after shooting, while parties thereto were in room where it occurred, and defendant still had pistol used, that deceased had shot herself, helé material and part of res gestse.
9. Criminal law <@=ol09(KI4) — Bill of exception must be taken to refusal of special charge.
Bill of exceptions must be taken to refusal of special charge.
Appeal from District Court, Kendall County; R. H. Burney, Judge.
Charlie Wren was convicted of murder, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Joe H. H. Graham, of San Antonio, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. 'Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.'

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Kendall county of murder, and his punishment fixed at 50 years in the penitentiary.
Appellant was charged with the murder of his wife, and there is nothing in the record suggesting any doubt or denial of the fact that on the date alleged she met her death by being shot with a pistol. Beside appellant and his wife, their little daughter and appellant's brother were in the house at time, and both testified substantially to the fact that appellant shot his wife.
There are 17 bills of exception in the record, each of which has been carefully examined and considered by us, but in none of which we observe any error calling for a reversal. By one of .said bills of exception complaint is made of the court's failure and refusal to submit the issue of an accidental killing. That it is not necessary to submit any issue not raised by the testimony is well settled. Appellant placed upon the witness stand his brother, Grant Wren, who testified that he was in the house of appellant at the time of the shooting. This witness testified that he saw appellant go to the bed and reach under the pillow or bedding for the gun, and that the pistol went off; that he could not state whether appellant was firing it or not, because he was not paying that much attention. He said that appellant was drunk. This witness denied that appellant and his wife were quarreling, and on cross-examination testified that when appellant got the pistol he (witness) was leaving, and went out through the kitchen door, and that at the time the shot was fired he was going on outside and paid no attention to his brother or deceased. The following quotation may be taken from his testimony:
"I heard the shot as I went out of the kitchen. As I went out through the back way through the kitchen I heard a shot fired. That's true, and that is the way I testified before the grand jury. That is the story I told the grand jury the day after the killing. I don't remember seeing Christine anywhere then; I don't remember whether she was in the room or not. I didn't tell you what Charlie and Addie were talking about just before Charlie got the pistol. No, sir; I don't remember anything that was said. Yes, sir; the only thing is that I saw Charlie get the pistol from under the pillow or under the mattress, and then I was leaving, arid when I was in the kitchen I heard the shot."
At another place in the testimony of this-witness appears the foEowing:
"I didn't know that Addie Wren was killed until after the officers came; I didn't know she was shot. No, sir; I couldn't see Addie-Wren as I was leaving at the kitchen, and I didn't see Charlie and I didn't see Addie at the-time the shot was fired. As to whether I didn't testify before the grand jury that Addie was fussing at Charlie at the time he fired the-shot, I said which 'way they were standing. As to whether I didn't state before the grand jury, 'She was fussing at Charlie, but made no movement toward him,' probably I did make that statement. Now, I say that at the time the shot was fired I was in the kitchen,, going out the back way; well, yes, sir; that, is correct. I was going outside, yes, sir.
"Q. You were leaving when the shot was fired? A. I don't remember how you asked me,, whether she was standing there and in what position, before that or afterwards. Yes, sir; I say now that when the shot was fired I was in the kitchen going the other way, I was going through the kitchen.
"Q. Out of the kitchen, to the outer door?1 A. I don't remember. I might have been out of the door. I don't remember just where I was."
This is the only testimony upon which could be based any claim of an accidental shooting, and, in our opinion, it so far fails to present that issue as to justify the learned-trial judge in declining to submit it
The 7 year old child of appellant was-introduced as a witness for the state. Objection was made to her testimony on the-ground that she was too young to know or appreciate the nature and quality of an oath. The examination given her by the learned trial judge is fuUy set out in the bill of exceptions, and from same it appears clear that the child was qualified, and we do not think the court below in error in admitting her testimony. The child testified that her mother and father had been fussing, and that the mother was sitting on a trunk, and her father got the pistol and shot her mother, and that her mother ran out of the door and fell. Several witnesses for the state who lived near by testified that they heard the shot and saw the woman fall out of the house.
Appellant seems to place some reliance upon the proposition that the evidence raised the issue of temporary insanity, resulting from the recent use of intoxicating liquor. The court fully submitted the law governing such issue. We do not perceive anything, arising, or presented in any of the other bills of exception, calling for discussion.
No error appearing in the record, an af-firmance will be ordered.
<gs»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<g^For other oases see same topic and KBY-NTJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes