Howard v. State

Citations

• 25 Tex. Ct. App. 686
• 8 S.W. 929
• 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 132

Syllabus

<p>1. Murder—Practice—Evidence.—Antecedent menaces, former grudges and quarrels may be proved on a murder trial to show the state of mind and the malice of the accused at the time of the killing. Under this rule the State was properly permitted to prove former difficulties between the accused and the deceased, and the previous threats made by the accused against the deceased.</p> <p>2. Same—Negligent Homicide—Charge op the Court.—Three elements concur to constitute negligent homicide of the second degree: 1. The killing must have occurred in the performance of an illegal act. 2. There must have been an apparent danger of causing the death of the person killed or some other. 3. There must have been no apparent intention to kill, and the homicide must have been the consequence of the act done or attempted to be done. See the opinion and the statement of the case for evidence held to raise the issue of negligent homicide of the second degree, and to have demanded of the trial court a charge upon that issue.</p> <p>3. Same—Impeaching Testimony.—The rule is well settled that a witness may be discredited by proving that on a former occasion he made statements inconsistent with his statements on the trial. The purpose of such contradictory evidence is not, as charged by the court in this case, merely to test the general credibility of the witness, but to attack the truth of his statement on the particular trial, and the jury have the right to consider it for that purpose. See the opinion for á charge on the subject held erroneous.</p>