Hartless v. State

Citations

• 32 Tex. 88

Syllabus

<p>1— As an abstract proposition of law, it is conceded that it is not competent, for the State to give in evidence the bad character of the accused, unless the accused has initiated the inquiry by evidence of good character.</p> <p>2— But it is mainly in cases of doubt about the guilty agent in criminal accu . sations that character becomes important in public trials.</p> <p>3— The appellant being on trial for the murder of her husband, the State, notwithstanding her objection, was allowed to introduce evidence as to her character, although she had not previously put her character in issue by any evidence respecting it. This being assigned as error, it is held that, under the circumstances of this case, and the appellant having confessed her participation in the homicide, the evidence as to her character was of no moment, and could have had no influence on the result of the trial; and hence its admission was not error, for which the judgment would be reversed.</p> <p>4— The court below instructed the jury that “ although a homicide may take place under circumstances showing no deliberation, yet, if the person guilty thereof provoked a contest with the apparent intention of killing or doing serious bodily injury to the deceased, the offense does not come within the definition of manslaughter.” Held, that the instruction was not only correct as a legal proposition, but was applicable to the facts in proof in this cause, and it was, therefore, properly given to the jury.</p> <p>5— A new trial will not be granted upon an exp arle and unsupported affidavit of a convict that by force, fraud, or threats, material witnesses for the defense had been kept from the trial; and especially will a new trial be refused when the absence of the witnesses and the materiality of their testimony were known to the defendant at the trial, and no continuance was asked, nor process to compel their attendance applied for, although they had been duly summoned.</p>