Fletcher v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Fletcher v. State

138 S.W. 109, 62 Tex. Crim. 417, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 296

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 24, 1911

DocketNo. 1199.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 S.W. 109 (Fletcher 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

Fletcher v. State, 138 S.W. 109, 62 Tex. Crim. 417, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 296 (Tex. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder of his wife, and the jury allotted him a lifetime service in the penitentiary.'

The evidence for the State is sufficient to show a cruel and very unnecessary homicide. A witness for the State testified that she saw the defendant shoot the deceased three times. “She w.as not doing anything. There was no one there but Aunt Harriet and me. They did not talk any when they met. Aunt Lizzie (deceased) asked Aunt Harriet was Hr. Wesley at home, and she told her no, and she turned around and came back, and after she got up to the trail and turned to go that way she asked Uncle John (defendant) to let Aunt Harriet 'go and get her clothes, and she would come back and go with Mm. He said no; she was going up the road, and he ran around and commenced shooting; he ran around some trees and commenced shooting; he shot Lizzie Smith with a double-barrel shotgun. I saw him fire the first shot; he put the gun to his shoulder and shot her. The second time he shot she said, 'Oh, John, do not shoot me any more; you have done broken my arm/ and he ran around and shot her again. She fell the second time he shot, and then he ran around and shot her again. She was lying on the ground when he shot her the last time. He put another shell in his gun and shot her the third time while she was down on the ground. The last time he shot her he shot her in the head. Then he ran off; he took his gun with him; he went away alone.” ,

This sufficiently discloses the State’s case on the main facts. There had been a separation between defendant and his deceased wife, and the inference from the evidence is that they were at the time living apart. Appellant introduced testimony seeking to show that his mind was unbalanced at the time of the killing. In other words, he sought to prove by witnesses that he was insane. The evidence does not sustain that contention as we understand the testimony of the witnesses. He was a negro of not very strong mind, and was moody and depressed at times, but he was employed in various matters and did his work reasonably well. The issue was submitted to the jury and they found against his theory of insanity, and we are of opinion correctly so.

There are no bills of exception in the record. We are of opinion *419 the evidence sustains the conviction, and the jury was justified in believing the defendant 'guilty.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder of his wife, and the jury allotted him a lifetime service in the penitentiary.'

The evidence for the State is sufficient to show a cruel and very unnecessary homicide. A witness for the State testified that she saw the defendant shoot the deceased three times. “She w.as not doing anything. There was no one there but Aunt Harriet and me. They did not talk any when they met. Aunt Lizzie (deceased) asked Aunt Harriet was Hr. Wesley at home, and she told her no, and she turned around and came back, and after she got up to the trail and turned to go that way she asked Uncle John (defendant) to let Aunt Harriet 'go and get her clothes, and she would come back and go with Mm. He said no; she was going up the road, and he ran around and commenced shooting; he ran around some trees and commenced shooting; he shot Lizzie Smith with a double-barrel shotgun. I saw him fire the first shot; he put the gun to his shoulder and shot her. The second time he shot she said, 'Oh, John, do not shoot me any more; you have done broken my arm/ and he ran around and shot her again. She fell the second time he shot, and then he ran around and shot her again. She was lying on the ground when he shot her the last time. He put another shell in his gun and shot her the third time while she was down on the ground. The last time he shot her he shot her in the head. Then he ran off; he took his gun with him; he went away alone.” ,

This sufficiently discloses the State’s case on the main facts. There had been a separation between defendant and his deceased wife, and the inference from the evidence is that they were at the time living apart. Appellant introduced testimony seeking to show that his mind was unbalanced at the time of the killing. In other words, he sought to prove by witnesses that he was insane. The evidence does not sustain that contention as we understand the testimony of the witnesses. He was a negro of not very strong mind, and was moody and depressed at times, but he was employed in various matters and did his work reasonably well. The issue was submitted to the jury and they found against his theory of insanity, and we are of opinion correctly so.

There are no bills of exception in the record. We are of opinion *419 the evidence sustains the conviction, and the jury was justified in believing the defendant 'guilty.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 109, 62 Tex. Crim. 417, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-state-texcrimapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack