Court Opinion

ID: 9677023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:41:14.511058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:53.225084
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
The indictment was in three counts. The second and third charged negligent homicide under Article 1242, Vernon’s Ann. P. C., in that appellant, while committing an aggravated assault and battery, he being a male and deceased being a female, through accident and mistake killed deceased by striking her in the face with his hands- and fists. It is apparent from the way the indictment was drawn that there was serious-doubt, in the minds of the prosecutor and the grand jury which returned the indictment, that the evidence was sufficient to-support a conviction under the count charging murder. The facts, as I view them,, amply support a finding of guilt under count two but do not support a conviction under the first count.
Sheared of all the gory details, we have here an unexpected death which resulted, from a blow with the hand or fist administered in a public place by a sober person who made no utterance from which an intent to kill might be inferred and which, grew out of a trivial disagreement.
A careful analysis of Dr. Plausman’s testimony will reveal that, although he found evidence of two blows, he attributed' the cause of death to one blow to the left temple and eye, which resulted in a hema-toma. He said, “I did not find anything that could have caused her death except this-fresh subdural hematoma.” He further-stated that a subdural hematoma may result from the application of a blunt force,, a slight force or no force at all, and that because of an earlier disease which deceased had suffered, the residual effects of which he was able to detect from his autopsy, the-deceased was more susceptible to formation of a hematoma. He further stated that when a man strikes a woman a blow on the side of the head “usually no hematoma, will form.”
I cannot agree that the fact that deceased went with appellant’s brother and his wife-to the barbeque line without waiting for *239appellant was such a provocation as to give rise to an intent to kill or that appellant might reasonably foresee that death would follow. However reprehensible his conduct may have been, appellant is entitled to the full protection of the law and should not be held accountable for unforeseeable results.
Because this record, as I view it, does not support a verdict of murder with malice, I respectfully dissent. Authorities supporting my views appear in the footnote.1

. Hill v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 225 S.W. 521; Jones v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 471, 251 S.W. 1096; Hawkins v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 163, 29 S.W.2d 384; Allison v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 428, 99 S.W.2d 917; Parks v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 464, 99 S.W.2d 943; Spivey v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 11, 171 S.W.2d 140; McDonough v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 178 S.W.2d 863; Watson v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 589, 189 S.W.2d 1020.