Hardin v. State

Citations

• 4 Tex. Ct. App. 355

Syllabus

<p>1. Pendency of Former Indictment.—To an indictment for murder the accused pleaded in abatement that a previous indictment for the same offense was still pending against him. Held, not a good plea.</p> <p>2. Jury—Special Venire.—In organizing a jury from a special venire, after the State had examined the jurors touching their qualifications, the accused was required, if he desired to cross-examine them, to do so before the State accepted or rejected them. Held, that this practice was not in violation of law or prejudicial to any right of the accused.</p> <p>3. Mutual Amenability of Joint Offenders.—Mote in the opinion a charge to a jury in a murder case which is held a correct exposition of the law controlling the amenability of each joint offender for the acts of hi$ confederates. '</p> <p>4. Charge of the Court.— On his trial for murder 'the accused asked the court to instruct the jury that his character had not been put in issue, and, therefore, in making up their verdict they should not be influenced by any supposed character of him. Held, not error to refuse such an instruction when there was no evidence to which it could apply other than his own boasts proved as part of the res gestee.</p> <p>5. Evidence—Flight.—It is competent for the State to prove that the accused fled after the commission of the offense. The case of Williams v. The State, 43 Texas, 182, is overruled in so far as it limits such proof to cases of circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>6. Murder. — The Code of this state has not abrogated the requirement of the 6 common law that in murder cases it is necessary to allege and to prove I that death resulted from the injury within a year and a day. The follow-J ing allegation sufficiently complies with this requirement: “Giving the said W., then and there, two mortal wounds, of which mortal wounds so ^jgiven as aforesaid the said W. did instantly die.’’</p>