Brocker v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Brocker v. State

162 S.W.2d 408, 144 Tex. Crim. 283, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 304

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 22, 1942

DocketNo. 22058.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 S.W.2d 408 (Brocker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brocker v. State, 162 S.W.2d 408, 144 Tex. Crim. 283, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 304 (Tex. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Murder is the offense; the punishment, three years in the State penitentiary.

In the light of the record, an extended statement of the facts is not deemed called for. It is sufficient say that appellant killed deceased by cutting and stabbing him with a small knife, which, from the State’s standpoint, was unprovoked and unjustified. According* to the appellant’s version, it was a killing in self-defense from the actual attack of the deceased.

The issues of fact arising were pertinently submitted to the jury and in such a manner that no exceptions or objections were reserved to the court’s charge.

By bill of exception, complaint is made of the overruling of appellant’s second application for a continuance. The trial court’s qualification to the bill of exception calls attention to the fact that the application was defective in that two statutory requisites for a valid motion for a continuance are omitted therefrom, viz.: the application fails to state that the witness was not absent by the procurement or consent of the defendant, and that the application was not made for delay. A motion for a continuance, to be valid, must, among other things, so state. Art. 543, C. C. P.; Clarich v. State, 137 Tex. Cr. R. 282, 129 S. W. (2d) 291; Mayes v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 42 S. W. (2d) 65; Woods v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 28 S. W. (2d) 554; Allen v. State, 141 Tex. Cr. R. 94, 146 S. W. (2d) 384; White v. State, 131 Tex. Cr. R. 69, 95 S. W. (2d) 429.

*285 The remaining bills of exception relate to argument of State’s counsel. The argument complained of violated no statutory or mandatory rule; nor does it appear therefrom that it was manifestly improper or harmful to the appellant. In the light of such fact, reversible error is not shown. Vineyard v. State, 257 S. W. 548, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 401; Heidle v. State, 86 S. W. (2d) 641, 129 Tex. Cr. R. 201; Newchurch v. State, 121 S. W. (2d) 998, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 619.

It was within the province of the jury to determine the disputed issues of fact. The State’s testimony was sufficient to authorize its conclusion of guilt.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Murder is the offense; the punishment, three years in the State penitentiary.

In the light of the record, an extended statement of the facts is not deemed called for. It is sufficient say that appellant killed deceased by cutting and stabbing him with a small knife, which, from the State’s standpoint, was unprovoked and unjustified. According* to the appellant’s version, it was a killing in self-defense from the actual attack of the deceased.

The issues of fact arising were pertinently submitted to the jury and in such a manner that no exceptions or objections were reserved to the court’s charge.

By bill of exception, complaint is made of the overruling of appellant’s second application for a continuance. The trial court’s qualification to the bill of exception calls attention to the fact that the application was defective in that two statutory requisites for a valid motion for a continuance are omitted therefrom, viz.: the application fails to state that the witness was not absent by the procurement or consent of the defendant, and that the application was not made for delay. A motion for a continuance, to be valid, must, among other things, so state. Art. 543, C. C. P.; Clarich v. State, 137 Tex. Cr. R. 282, 129 S. W. (2d) 291; Mayes v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 42 S. W. (2d) 65; Woods v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 373, 28 S. W. (2d) 554; Allen v. State, 141 Tex. Cr. R. 94, 146 S. W. (2d) 384; White v. State, 131 Tex. Cr. R. 69, 95 S. W. (2d) 429.

*285 The remaining bills of exception relate to argument of State’s counsel. The argument complained of violated no statutory or mandatory rule; nor does it appear therefrom that it was manifestly improper or harmful to the appellant. In the light of such fact, reversible error is not shown. Vineyard v. State, 257 S. W. 548, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 401; Heidle v. State, 86 S. W. (2d) 641, 129 Tex. Cr. R. 201; Newchurch v. State, 121 S. W. (2d) 998, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 619.

It was within the province of the jury to determine the disputed issues of fact. The State’s testimony was sufficient to authorize its conclusion of guilt.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.W.2d 408, 144 Tex. Crim. 283, 1942 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brocker-v-state-texcrimapp-1942.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack