Reedy v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Reedy v. State

2 S.W. 591, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 271, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 254

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 13, 1886

DocketNo. 2360

StatusPublished

This text of 2 S.W. 591 (Reedy v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reedy v. State, 2 S.W. 591, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 271, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 254 (Tex. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, under Article 680 Penal Code, was indicted for willfully and wantonly killing a cow. On the trial it was proposed by defendant to show by the witness Wynn that the animals with which the cow that was killed ran were breachy animals and in the habit of trespassing upon crops. This evidence was excluded on objection by the State.

The ruling was erroneous. The evidence should have gone to the jury in order that they might have considered it in determining whether the killing was willfully and wantonly done without excuse and under circumstances evincing a lawless spirit, or whether under the circumstances such facts negatived such motives, promptings and wantonness. (Branch v. the State, 41 Texas, 622; Jones v. The State, 3 Texas Ct. App., 228; Lott v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 206; Davis v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 11; Thomas v. The State, 14 Texas Ct. App., 200; Lane v. The State, 16 Texas Ct. App., 172; Payne v. The State, 17 Texas Ct. App., 40.

For error in rejecting this evidence the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, under Article 680 Penal Code, was indicted for willfully and wantonly killing a cow. On the trial it was proposed by defendant to show by the witness Wynn that the animals with which the cow that was killed ran were breachy animals and in the habit of trespassing upon crops. This evidence was excluded on objection by the State.

The ruling was erroneous. The evidence should have gone to the jury in order that they might have considered it in determining whether the killing was willfully and wantonly done without excuse and under circumstances evincing a lawless spirit, or whether under the circumstances such facts negatived such motives, promptings and wantonness. (Branch v. the State, 41 Texas, 622; Jones v. The State, 3 Texas Ct. App., 228; Lott v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 206; Davis v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 11; Thomas v. The State, 14 Texas Ct. App., 200; Lane v. The State, 16 Texas Ct. App., 172; Payne v. The State, 17 Texas Ct. App., 40.

For error in rejecting this evidence the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.W. 591, 22 Tex. Ct. App. 271, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reedy-v-state-texapp-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack