Court Opinion

ID: 9671760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:43:05.825076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:11.894852
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge,
(dissenting).
One charged with a capital felony is not entitled to bail merely because of the presence of some testimony raising a defensive issue. Ex parte Ross, 94 Texas Cr. Rep. 313, 251 S.W. 233, citing Ex parte Smith, 23 Texas App. 100, 5 S.W. 99, and Ex parte Jones, 31 Texas Cr. Rep. 422, 20 S.W. 983.
The only testimony found in this record, which, if admitted at the trial, could require a charge on self-defense was that of appellant’s brother as to appellant’s statement after he went to his mother’s home following the killing. The statement appellant contends was res gestae and admissible as such. The state views the statement as self-serving and inadmissible.
The 77-year-old father lived in a hotel where other elderly men resided. He was heard to tell his 45 year old son, the appellant, to get out of his room.
Some 30 minutes later, the father’s dead body was found, with his throat cut “as completely as it could be cut. * * * the only thing that apparently stopped the knife was the cervical vertebra * * * the back bone. It was cut at least twice. * * * It must have been a very sharp knife.”
A bloody knife with open blade 4 or 5 inches long was found 10 or 12 feet from the building.
Appellant was at his mother’s home washing his face, his hands and his shirt when Officer Hughes arrivéd and heard him say “they would not have to worry about him any more * * * that he had fixed him.”
The appellant said nothing to Officer Hughes which suggested self-defense. Appellant’s brother, on cross-examination, admitted, that, when the district attorney came to his mother’s home later in the evening-and asked him what appellant' said *503when he arrived, he did not tell the district attorney that his brother said he had been attacked and threatened by his- father.
The trial judge observed the witnesses and heard their testimony. He concluded from all of the evidence that appellant was not entitled to bail. The presumption is that his ruling was correct. The facts and circumstances warrant his conclusion that the proof was evident and that the claim of self-defense was not well supported.
There is no showing that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing bail, and his judgment should not be disturbed.