Clore v. State

Citations

• 26 Tex. Ct. App. 624
• 10 S.W. 242
• 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 228

Syllabus

<p>1. Manslaughter—'“Adequate Cause”—Charge oe the Court.—Man slaughter, under our law, is predicated upon adequate cause, and unless adequate cause exists the homicide will not be reduced from murder though committed under the immediate influence of sudden passion rendering the mind incapable of cool reflection. See the statement of the ease for evidence held not to demand of the trial court a charge upon manslaughter, because it clearly demonstrates the non-existence of adequate cause.</p> <p>2. Same—Murder—Intoxication as a Defense to Crime—Statutes Construed.—The meaning of our statute regulating intoxication as a defense to crime is, 1, Mere intoxication from the recent use of ardent spirits will not, of itself, in any case excuse crime. 2, Mere intoxication will neither mitigate the degree nor the penalty of crime. 3, Temporary insanity produced by such use of ardent spirits is evidence which may be used in all eases in the mitigation of the penalty, and also in murder, for the further purpose of determining the degree. (Willson’s Crim. Stats., sec. 92.) In this case the charge of the trial court on the subject (for which see the opinion) was favorable to the defendant, and his objection to the same will not be heard on appeal.</p> <p>3. Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Practice.—The trial court is not required to instruct the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence unless the inculpatory evidence is altogether of that character,—which was not the condition of the proof in this case.</p> <p>4. Same—Continuance.—Continuance to procure absent testimony that does not appear to be either material or probably true, or which, if present, would be inadmissible, is properly refused.</p>