Callahan v. State

17 S.W. 257, 30 Tex. Ct. App. 275, 1891 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 74
Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided October 17, 1891·No. No. 3843·Published

Opinion

WHITE, Presiding Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction of murder in the first degree, with the penalty assessed at a lifetime imprisonment in the penitentiary. The charge of the court to the jury, while it properly defines “express malice,” fails and omits to define “malice aforethought.” “A charge of the court in a trial for murder which omits to define ‘malice’ or ‘malice aforethought,’ the essential elements of murder, is erroneous, and such error is not cured by the definition of ‘express’ and ‘implied’ malice.” Crook v. The State, 27 Texas Ct. App., 200; Boyd v. The State, 28 Texas Ct. App., 137; Childers v. The State, 13 S. W. Rep. 650; Ainsworth v. The State, 29 Texas Ct. App., 599; Washington v. The State, 16 S. W. Rep., 652. For this error in the charge of the court the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Hurt, J., absent.

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

Callahan v. State, 17 S.W. 257, 30 Tex. Ct. App. 275, 1891 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 74 (Tex. Ct. App. 1891).

17 S.W. 257 (Callahan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ainsworth v. State
16 S.W. 652 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1891)