Tatum v. State

66 S.W. 553, 43 Tex. Crim. 415, 1902 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 11
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 29, 1902
DocketNo. 2380.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 66 S.W. 553 (Tatum 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
Tatum v. State, 66 S.W. 553, 43 Tex. Crim. 415, 1902 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 11 (Tex. 1902).

Opinion

*419 BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the murder of his father-in-law, and upon trial was convicted, and his punishment assessed at thirty years confinement in the penitentiary.

Bills of exception numbers 1 and 2 complain that the court erred in excluding evidence to the effect that deceased' had told witness that he wanted to get a woman to sleep with, shortly before the homicide. Bill number 3 is to the exclusion of the testimony of Anna Patrick that, about two years before, deceased proposed marriage to witness. Appellant’s contention is that this would tend to rebut the theory of the State that, on account of the age or decrepitude of deceased, he was impotent, and incapable of committing the crime of rape upon the wife of appellant, which, according to the theory of appellant, was the cause of the homicide. This evidence was inadmissible. The court permitted appellant to prove the general reputation for lasciviousness of deceased, and this was all appellant could legally contend for. Underh. Crim. Ev., sec. 325; Jones v. State, 38 Texas Crim. App., 88. Under the facts, appellant was guilty of murder in the first degree. At least, the jury would have been warranted in so finding. He deliberately planned and prepared himself for and took the life of his father-in-law, stating he did so because he was tired of him. The jury were amply warranted in finding the verdict they did. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Thomas v. State
821 S.W.2d 616 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
United States v. Thomas Duane Davis
429 F.2d 552 (Eighth Circuit, 1970)
Jones v. State
69 S.W.2d 65 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1933)
Dickey v. State
268 S.W. 462 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1925)
Maddox v. State
254 S.W. 800 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Britton v. State
253 S.W. 519 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Hunt v. State
250 S.W. 168 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Rea v. State
80 S.W. 1003 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 S.W. 553, 43 Tex. Crim. 415, 1902 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatum-v-state-texcrimapp-1902.