Perry v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Matagorda. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Burkhart. The facts are fully given in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Gould, Associate Justice.
The indictment follows the usual form, the sufficiency of which under our statute cannot now be questioned. It has not been held necessary to aver that the person killed was a reasonable creature, nor to charge that the killing was with express malice, the words “ with malice aforethought” being sufficient. (Henrie v. State, 41 Tex., 573; Grehrke v. State, 13 Tex., 573; McCoy v. State, 25 Tex., 37; Calvin v. State, 25 Tex., 793; Perryman v. State, 36 Tex., 321.)
The verdict is not vitiated because, after finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Calvin v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1860
- Farrer v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Henrie v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1874
- Gehrke v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Perryman v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Bohannon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1883
- Guffee v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1880
- Ainsworth v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1880
- Ake v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1879
- Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.