Case Name: Henry Wysong v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-05-17
Citations: 66 Tex. Crim. 201
Docket Number: No. 1292
Parties: Henry Wysong v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 201–207

Head Matter:
Henry Wysong v. The State.
No. 1292.
Decided May 17, 1911.
Rehearing Granted April 3, 1912.
1. —Murder—Continuance—Absent Testimony Proved by Other Witnesses.
Where the absent testimony was sought on the assumption that the State would prove a previous difficulty between defendant and deceased, which it did not do, and the record showed that defendant proved the same facts by practically all the witnesses and the State did not contest the point, there' was no error in overruling the motion for continuance.
2. —Same—Evidence—Animus of Defendant.
Upon trial of murder, there was no error in permitting the State to introduce testimony to show defendant’s state of mind and that he was mad and prepared himself with a pistol in the presence of witness.
3. —Same—Charge of Court—Reasonable Doubt.
Where, the court in his charge instructed the jury that the burden of proof was on the State, that the defendant was presumed to be innocent, etc., and in ease_ of a reasonable doubt, to find a verdict of not guilty, there was no error in failing to charge the reasonable doubt in connection with the charge on manslaughter for which defendant was convicted; under Article 723, Code Criminal Procedure.
4. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Murder—Manslaughter.
If the proof shows murder in the first or second degree, and even does not show manslaughter, yet where manslaughter is submitted, and the jury find defendant guilty thereof, the conviction is sustained. Following Gray v. State, 61 Texas Crim. Rep., 454, and other cases. Article 817, Code Criminal Procedure. Davidson, Presiding Judge, dissenting.
Appeal from the District Court of Austin. Tried below before the Hon. John T. Duncan, Special Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
•The opinion states the case.
Johnson, Matthaei & Thompson, for appellant.
On question of continuance: Carter v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 403; Hyden v. State, 31 id., 401; McAdams v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 86.
On question of declarations of third party: Belverman v. State, 16 Texas, 131; Monk v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 450; Richardson v. State, 32 Texas Crim. Rep., 524; Harris v. State, 37 id., 441.
On question of reasonable doubt: Mace v. State, 6 Texas Crim. App., 470.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, and C. G. Krueger, for the State.
On question of continuance where testimony of the same character is produced: Walker v. State, 13 Texas Crim. App., 618; Bush v. State, 51 S. W. Rep., 239.
On question of court’s charge: McCall v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 353; Ashlock v. State, 16 id., 13; Edens v. State, 55 S. W. Rep., 815.
On question where physical facts bear out theory of State, no error: Bright v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 68; Pickett v. State, id., 290.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, his punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
1. Two questions are suggested for revision: Eirst, the refusal of the continuance on account of the absence of the witness Summage. If it was deemed necessary to discuss this question, we are of opinion that the appellant was entitled to have the absent evidence before the jury, but the view we take of the case it is not necessary to go into a discussion of that question.
2. The second question presented is the want of sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. As we understand the evidence, it is shown that on the night of the homicide a lot of negroes had congregated near a store. A number of them were engaged- in a game of "monte." Tobe Wilson was the dealer. There arose some trouble between Kit Tate and one of the other negroes, during which Tate exhibited r, pistol. Mr. Latimer came upon the scene and interfered with a view of suppressing the trouble and making the negroes behave themselves. He took from Tate a pistol. Immediately upon his securing the pistol, the deceased, Evans, grabbed it out of his hand. Latimer demanded it. Evans told him that he would give up his pistol if Henry (appellant) would give up his. This is one phase of the testimony. Another goes to show that he stated he would not give it up, that he would die and go to hell first. Mr. Latimer ordered appellant to go home; that he immediately started in that direction and went into the store. Latimer took the deceased by the arm and carried him to the door of the store and pushed him in. He was not aware at the time that he put deceased in the store that appellant was also in there. Appellant and deceased both ordered beer. There was some question as to which one ordered it first, but after deceased ordered his beer he turned to appellant and said, "You pulled a gun on that boy out there and you know that if you do that you had just as well pull it "on me." Appellant remarked, "You are a liar," or, "damn liar." Deceased then remarked to appellant, "You got your gun and I have got mine, so let's go." Deceased then reached his hand for his pistol and exhibited it as if to shoot and appellant fired twice. This is practically the substance of the immediate facts surrounding the homicide. Under this condition of the record we are of opinion that the conviction was wrong and not supported by the evidence. •
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.