Case Name: Archie Hamilton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-11-15
Citations: 64 Tex. Crim. 175
Docket Number: No. 1376
Parties: Archie Hamilton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 175–179

Head Matter:
Archie Hamilton v. The State.
No. 1376.
Decided November 15, 1911.
Rehearing granted December 20, 1912.
1. —Murder—Final Judgment.
Where the appeal was dismissed because the transcript did not contain the sentence or final judgment, but the same was brought forth by writ of certiorari, the appeal was reinstated.
2. —Same—Bills of Exception.
Where the bills of exception were filed more than thirty days after adjournment without an order, the same must be stricken out on motion of the State.
3. —Same—Charge of Court—Murder in the Second Degree.
Where the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and the evidence did not raise the issue of manslaughter, there was no error in the court submitting the issue of murder in the. second degree.
4. —Same—Accidental Shooting—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence raised the issue of accidental or unintentional killing, it was reversible error not to submit this issue.
5. —Same—Charge of Court—Negligent Homicide.
Where the evidence presented a case of accidental or unintentional killing, there was no error in the court’s failure to charge on negligent homicide in the first degree.
6. —Same—Charge of Court—Interlineations—Erasures.
Where the original charge of the court was sent up with the record and was not subject to the complaint made that, by reason of interlineation, erasures, etc., the same could not be understood, there was no error.
7. —Same—Charge of Court—Reasonable Doubt.
Where the court’s charge applied the reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence to the whole case, there was no error, in the absence of special instructions, on the ground that the court did not charge the reasonable doubt as to each issue submitted.
8. —Same—Misconduct - of Jury—Affidavits.
Jurymen are not permitted to impeach their own verdict by affidavit that they misunderstood the meaning and import of the court’s charge.
9. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
While the evidence might sustain a conviction for murder in the second degree, yet, where the same raised the issue of unintentional killing, the same should have been submitted to the jury.
Appeal from the District Court of Sabine. Tried below before the Hon. W. B. Powell.
Appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree; penalty, ten years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Goodrich & Lewis, for appellant.
On the question of the insufficiency of the evidence: Connor v. State, 34 Texas, 659.
On the question of the court’s failure to charge on negligent homicide: Morris v. State, 35 Texas Crim. Rep., 313; Bradshaw v. State, 50 S. W. Rep., 359; Wharton on Homicide, secs. 109, 366, 374.
On the question of the court’s failure to charge on accidental homicide: Houston v. State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 657; Biggerstaff v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 575.
On question of the court’s failure to properly apply the reasonable doubt: Murray v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 417; Banes v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 421.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was indicted, charged with murder, and when tried, he was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at ten years in the penitentiary.
The assistant attorney-general has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, because the transcript does not contain the sentence, or final judgment of the court. We have carefully examined the transcript, and it not containing the final judgment of the court, sentencing appellant, the motion must be sustained. Dismissed.
Dismissed.