Document: 355 U.S. 28 78 S.Ct. 103 2 L.Ed.2d 9 alvaro ALCORTA, Petitioner,v.The STATE OF TEXAS. No. 139. Argued Oct. 23, 1957. Decided Nov. 12, Messrs. Fred A. Semaan and Raul Villarreal, San Antonio, Tex., for petitioner. Roy R. Barrera Hubert W. Green, Jr., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, Alvaro Alcorta, was indicted murder in a Texas state court stabbing his wife to death. Vernon's Tex.Pen.Code, 1948, Art. 1256. He admitted the killing but claimed it occurred fit of passion when he discovered wife, whom had already suspected marital infidelity, kissing one Castilleja late at night parked car. Petitioner relied on statutes which treat under influence 'sudden arising from an adequate cause * as would commonly produce degree anger, rage, resentment, or terror person ordinary temper sufficient render mind incapable cool reflection' without malice punishable by maximum sentence five years' imprisonment. Arts. 1257a, 1257b, 1257c. The jury, however, found him guilty with and, acting broad statutory authority determine extent punishment, sentenced judgment were affirmed Court Criminal Appeals. 165 Tex.Cr.R. —-, 294 S.W.2d 112. Castilleja, only eye witness killing, testified State petitioner's trial. In response inquiries prosecutor about relationship said that simply driven her home work couple times, substance been nothing more than casual friendship. stated given ride she killed front car lights out two o'clock morning because engine trouble. then asked what transpired between car: 3 'Q. Did you have conversation Herlinda? Yes; opened door. She going get off (sic) then, told me tell my sister come pick up so could go church. 4 To your sister, Delfina Cabrera, church? Yes.' At conclusion Castilleja's testimony following colloquy took place prosecutor: 5 Natividad (Castilleja), love 6 Was you? 7 Had ever talked love? 8 any dates other take home? Well, just I brought there. Just work? 10 All this quite plainly inconsistent claim upon 11 Some time after conviction issued sworn statement declared false Relying petitioner trial issue writ habeas corpus. contended denied fair violation Federal Constitutions falsely, knowledge prosecutor, 'that friend neighbor, no 'dates,' nor relations her, truth fact lover paramour, sexual intercourse many occasions *.' further alleged illicit 12 A hearing held petition called witness. confessed having six within relatively brief period before informed should not volunteer information such if specifically answer truthfully. stand these statements true. conceded wife. also included written taken prior instead noted separate record. judge applied Appeals corpus court, record made curt, refused writ. We granted certiorari, 353 972, 77 1063, 1135. concedes has exhausted all remedies available law. 13 Under general principles laid down Mooney v. Holohan, 103, 55 340, 79 L.Ed. 791, Pyle Kansas, 317 213, 63 177, 87 214, accorded due process It cannot seriously be disputed testimony, whole, gave jury impression This elicited who knew Undoubtedly prejudicial tended squarely refute surge passion' If truthfully portrayed have, apart impeaching credibility, corroborate contention embracing Castilleja. defense accepted might well allowed testify offense reduced 'murder malice' precluding death penalty now imposed him. 14 is reversed remanded proceedings opinion. 15 ordered. 16 Reversed remanded.

Category: 0