Case Name: JONES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-02-11
Citations: 218 S.W. 759
Docket Number: No. 5673
Parties: JONES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 218
Pages: 759–760

Head Matter:
JONES v. STATE.
(No. 5673.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 11, 1920.)
Homicide <&wkey;250 — Evidence sufficient to SUSTAIN CONVICTION OF MURDER.
In a prosecution for homicide, where defendant was convicted of murder, evidence held sufficient to sustain the conviction.
. Appeal from District Court, Leon County; Ben H. Powell, Judge.
Lum Jones was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was allotted a term of six years in the penitentiary for murder.
The question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. This case is not an exception to the general rule that the testimony is quite variant in regard to the trouble resulting in the homicide. Appellant, killed his brother-in-law at the residence of deceased. The wife of appellant had gone on a visit to her brother, and appellant had gone after her to carry her home. She declined to go, and this seems to have originated the trouble. The state's theory is that appellant became boisterous, and so much so that tbe wife of' deceased called bim (deceased) into tbe bouse. When bo came in be ordered appellant to leave bis place on account of tbis conduct. Appellant went to bis wagon out near tbe gate about 30 steps away. Deceased went out in tbe yard a few feet from tbe residence. Appellant sbot bim three times, killing bim. Appellant's contention was that deceased bad acted in sucb way towards bim in tbe bouse, and also by following bim out in tbe yard, that be believed bis life was in danger. So be went to bis wagon and got bis gun, and as deceased was standing near tbe bouse be sbot bim. Deceased was armed, but not witb anything that he could use at tbe time, but appellant's contention was that one of tbe boys was on tbe gallery close by deceased, and that deceased was seeking to get a gun from him at tbe time be sbot. Before tbis occurred tbe evidence shows that appellant bad gone to tbe wagon and secured bis gun.' Tbe court charged upon the theory of self-defense. There were no exceptions taken to the charge, or to tbe admission or rejection of testimony. We are of opinion that the' jury were justified in their verdict under, tbe facts.
Tbe judgment will therefore be affirmed.
@=jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes