Case Name: CARPENTER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-03-31
Citations: 286 S.W. 228
Docket Number: No. 9634
Parties: CARPENTER v. STATE.
Judges: MORROW, P. J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 286
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
CARPENTER v. STATE.
(No. 9634.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 31, 1926.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1926.)
■ Randell & Randell and Fieeman, McRey-nolds & Hay, all of, Sherman, for appellant.
Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, J'.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Grayson county for manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.
The record discloses that the appellant was a locomotive engineer, and the deceased, Burke, was his fireman. Prior to the homicide, it appears that the appellant had complained of the failure of the deceased to cooperate with him in operating the train, and failure upon the part of the deceased to properly observe the rules and regulations in connection therewith, and had filed charges to that effect with the proper officials. It was the contention of the appellant, and he testified to that effect, that prior to the day of the homicide, when he had called the deceased's attention to his failure to observe the rules and regulations of the company, the deceased became very angry and said to him, "That if I did not keep my nose out of his business, that he would cut my damned throat." The appellant also testified that the deceased had a knife in his hand at that time, and every time he would call his attention to his neglecting his work, he would get his knife and whittle on his nails, and things of that kind, and from his actions, appellant w;as impressed that he would injure him (appellant), and from that time on went armed. Appellant also testified .that on the morning of the homicide, when he called the deceased's attention to his failure to keep the oil cans filled, he became enraged and struck at him with an oil can about 20 inches long, including the handle and the bowl, and when full of oil would weigh about 3% pounds, and upon the appellant's stepping back, the deceased drew the oil can again to strike him, when he (appellant), in self-defense, drew his pistol and shot the deceased, the evidence discloses, about three or four times, and killed him.
The record discloses that the deceased was a man who weighed from about 140 to 160 pounds, and appellant from about 175 to 200 pounds.
Bills of exceptions Nos. 3 to 17 complain of the action of the court in permitting the state to introduce testimony from the witnesses therein mentioned1 that deceased's reputation for being a quiet, inoffensive citizen was good, and that article 1143, Vernon's P. C.,' article 1258 of the 1925 Code, does not authorize the introduction of evidence of the good character of the deceased upon threats of the kin'd involved in thi» record, which appellant contends were conditional threats, and that the court was in error in permitting the state to show the good character of the deceased for the reason stated. The state's attorneys object to our considering said bills because they are in question and answer form and contrary to the statute of this state requiring said bills to be in narrative form. Each and all of said bills are subject to the criticism urged and objections raised, but in passing we desire to state that this court has held against the contention made by the appellant in Gilliam v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 67, 272 S. W. 154. We might also state in this connection that said bills, as presented with the qualifications of the court thereon, show no error in any of the matters complained of.
Appellant strenuously insists that the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict of manslaughter, and that this court should hold that the jury was unauthorized to convict the defendant because there was no one present at the scene of the homicide except the deceased and the appellant, and the appellant testified to facts which'were undisputed and showing that he was acting in' his own #self-defense, and therefore entitled to a verdict of not guilty. The learned trial judge submitted to the jury the law of murder, manslaughter, threats and self-defense, without any objection to his charge on the part of the appellant. The condition of the appellant's mind at the time of the homicide is a question of fact to be passed on by the jury, which is a well-established doctrine of this court. This court also holds, and has held for many years, that the jury is not bound to take the testimony of -the appellant or any interested party in the case, although I same is unco'ntradicted. Hawkins v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 569, 270 S. W. 1025; Key v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 270 S. W. 1027; Horak v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 485, 273 S. W. 601. Under the well-established doctrine as above stated, the jury having passed on the issue as to the guilt or innocence of the appellant, their finding, under the facts as presented by the record, is binding upon this court, and we are unauthorized to disturb the verdict rendered by them.
After a very careful examination of the entire record, we are forced to the conclusion that there is no error shown, and that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined. by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.
MORROW, P. J., absent.