Weaver v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The deceased had just returned to his home from Milford the day he was killed, about two hours before sundown. Just before night he took two water buckets and went to the spring for water; soon after he was gone several pistol or gunshots were heard by his wife and others, in the direction of the spring.
Read the full summary
The deceased had just returned to his home from Milford the day he was killed, about two hours before sundown. Just before night he took two water buckets and went to the spring for water; soon after he was gone several pistol or gunshots were heard by his wife and others, in the direction of the spring. His wife, her sister and Joe Hinson, a little while after the shooting, went towards the spring, which was near the house, and found Charley Martin, the deceased, dead near the spring. There were no eyewitnesses to the killing, but the next morning early the sheriff and officers were at the…
1DissentHenderson, Judge
In agreeing to the overruling of the motion for rehearing, I would state that I believe we were in error in holding that there is a difference in the duty of the court with reference to charging on motive and intent, to wit: that in the former the court was not required to limit the testimony to the particular purpose of its introduction, while in the latter the court is required to do so. The authorities cited by appellant support his contention to the effect that where an extraneous crime is introduced to show motive or intent, there is no difference in the duty of the court with reference…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cave v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Fretwell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1902