Case Name: FOLEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-08
Citations: 272 S.W. 799
Docket Number: No. 9282
Parties: FOLEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 799–802

Head Matter:
FOLEY v. STATE.
(No. 9282.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 8, 1925.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
Homicide <&wkey;253(l) — Evidence held not to justify conviction of murder with penalty of death.
In a prosecution for murder, which occurred in an altercation between deceased and accused over change to which accused was entitled after purchasing a beverage, evidence held not to justify conviction of murder with penalty of death.
Appeal from District Court, Lavaca County; Lester Holt, Judge.
Alex Foley was convicted of murder, with the penalty of death, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Bagby & Kacir, of Hallettsville, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Appellant is condemned to suffer death for the offense of murder. He shot and killed Isidor Matejek, who was the keeper of a cold drinks establishment. Several eyewitnesses were called by the state. The deceased, was a white man. There were several negroes and some white men in the deceased's place of business. The appellant and a companion entered and called for two bottles of soda water. After drinking them, appellant handed the deceased a piece of money and received some change, but claimed that it was not enough. A quarrel between the appellant and the deceased ensued. Appellant was ordered to leave the building. Failing to respond, the deceased got a stick about three feet long, which had the appearance of a broom handle. Appellant and his companion ran to the back door, where they had a conversation,' after which the appellant returned, and in a loud voice and arrogant manner demanded his change. He was again ordered to leave, but replied that "he was not in i a hurry to come in, and would not be in a hurry to leave"; that the deceased was misled about hitting the appellant with a stick; "that he would not hit him with a stick." The stick in question was under the arm of the deceased at the time. He took the stick in his hand and swung it'at the appellant, who fired his pistol twice, killing the deceased. One of the state's witnesses was uncertain whether the deceased struck the appellant with the stick or not. Another witness for the state testified that the companion of the appellant advised him not to re-enter the place after he was ordered out. Appellant, however, re-entered and said that "he had come for his change and that he was going to have it." The deceased then put some money on the counter and said: "Here is your change. Take it and get out of here and stay out." Appellant replied: "I was not in any hurry about coming in, and I will not be in any hurry about going out." The order to get out was repeated several times by the deceased, and he finally struck the appellant with the stick. They were on opposite sides of the counter, and the appellant immediately fired.
According to the appellant, who testified as a witness in his own behalf, he had gotten a pint of whisky from the deceased some hours before the homicide. , Upon going to his home, he took several drinks of the whisky. Hearing a noise on his premises, he got his pistol, went into the yard, and fired at a bottle on the fence. Having occasion to go on an errand, he got in his automobile, taking the pistol with him. Upon his return he stopped his car and, together with the witness Olay, entered the place of business of the deceased and bought some soda water. After drinking the soda water, he handed the deceased a dollar and asked for the change. The deceased said there was no change coming and ordered the appellant to leave, making a threatening gesture with the stick at the time. He and Olay ran out. Upon reaching the door, appellant told Olay that he was going to return and ask for his change; that he was entitled to it and knew that the deceased would give it to him. When he returned and asked for the change, the deceased put 35 cents in nickels upon the counter, and when the appellant reached for it, he was struck by tbe deceased with a stick wbicb be bad in bis band; that be was first struck upon tbe wrist and fben upon tbe bead. After be was struck tbe third time, be shot tbe deceased. Appellant claimed that the blows received wounded bim and caused blood to flow. He also introduced some corroborative testimony to the effect that he bad wounds upon bim. One witness testified that after tbe homicide appellant's wrist was swollen and appeared to have been bruised. This, however, Was Controverted by tbe state. There were two bottles in tbe appellant's; automobile. One was full of whisky; tbe other empty.
The court instructed the jury on tbe law of murder and manslaughter, including- a specific charge on the phase of manslaughter, wbicb renders a blow causing pain or bloodshed adequate cause. He also charged on tbe law of self-defense and proVoking the difficulty.
Tbe issues raised by tbe evidence seem to have been clearly and adequately presented to tbe jury. There are no complaints of •tbe rulings of tbe court upon tbe admission of evidence preserved by bills of exception.
Tbe evidence in tbe case is not such as would ordinarily lead one to expect a verdict assessing tbe death penalty. Possibly tbe fact that tbe appellant was a negro and tbe deceased a white man may have bad some bearing. However, in tbe absence of some tangible matter revealed by the record wbicb would convey to this court information which would justify tbe conclusion that tbe verdict was affected by passion or prejudice, it would not be warranted in interfering with tbe verdict, wbicb has' tbe sanction of tbe learned trial judge, in whose presence tbe evidence upon wbicb tbe verdict was based was given, and who, in tbe light of tbe evidence, overruled the motion for new trial. We have failed to perceive any matter in tbe record of legal significance wbicb would lead us to tbe conclusion that tbe trial accorded tbe appellant was other than a fair one by an impartial jury. The evidence warrants tbe conclusion wbicb appears bo have been formed by tbe jury that tbe blows wbicb tbe appellant received after bis return were provoked by bim; that after be bad been given tbe change wbicb be claimed was due bim, bis manner and bis words were such as to provoke tbe deceased to make an attack; that they were so intended and made with the purpose of killing tbe deceased in tbe event be responded by striking tbe appellant with tbe stick.
Tbe judgment is affirmed.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered. Digests and Indexes