Frank Lee Hawkins

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for possessing intoxicating liquor for sale in a dry area of Lubbock County, Texas, resulting in a $200 fine. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction on appeal because the record contained no statement of facts or bills of exception. The court reasoned that the appellant and counsel did not demonstrate they were without fault in failing to secure timely approval and filing of these documents within the 90-day period allowed after notice of appeal, as required under prior precedents.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of appellant for theft of an automobile, with punishment set at seven years in the penitentiary. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the indictment properly alleged ownership by Clifford David, Jr., who had exclusive possession and control of the car as a special owner, even though legal title was in his father. It rejected claims of jury misconduct due to lack of supporting evidence and determined that the evidence did not raise the issue of temporary insanity from intoxication, noting that mere drunkenness neither excuses the crime nor mitigates punishment under the court's charge. The trial court's instructions on possession and the non-excusing nature of intoxication were upheld as appropriate.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Carter, Jr. for theft of an automobile, with a sentence of seven years imprisonment. The defendant challenged the proof of ownership in the indictment, the lack of a jury instruction on temporary insanity due to intoxication, and alleged jury misconduct. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the alleged owner had sufficient possession as a special owner, that the evidence did not raise the issue of temporary insanity, and that drunkenness does not excuse or mitigate the crime under Texas law. The court also found no evidence of jury misconduct and that the jury charge was appropriate.

criminal law

The case of Ex Parte Harris involved a habeas corpus proceeding concerning an alleged sexual assault. The court considered a motion for rehearing and determined that prior precedents, such as Ex parte Merrill, which stressed the absence of a prompt complaint in cases of forcible ravishment, did not apply. This distinction was based on the fact that the present matter involved no claim of forcible ravishment. As a result, the motion for rehearing was overruled.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appellant's motion for rehearing in a criminal matter concerning an alleged assault. The court determined that precedents emphasizing the absence of a prompt complaint, such as Ex parte Merrill, do not apply. The core reasoning is that those cases address forcible ravishment, which is not claimed here. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing was overruled.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a relator's conviction for speeding in the Clarksville corporation court, where the complaint charged a violation of both state law (Art. 827a, sec. 8) and a city ordinance. The state moved for rehearing, claiming the conviction rested on the state statute rather than the ordinance. The court overruled the motion for rehearing, holding that the verdict and judgment were ambiguous and did not specify which law was violated. Without such a recital, the court could not determine the basis of the conviction, and the ordinance had already been ruled void in the original opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

In Alley v. State, the defendant appealed his conviction after the trial judge assessed punishment based on the court's personal knowledge of the defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions and other unproven conduct, none of which was introduced as evidence during the trial. On motion for rehearing, the appellate court examined the statement of facts and focused on the county judge's certified additions detailing how he considered the defendant's past guilty pleas, prior warnings from the bench, reputation, and other incidents known only to the court. The court held that such reliance on extra-record judicial knowledge constituted reversible error, drawing an analogy to improper attempts to supplement the record with facts outside the evidence. It therefore granted rehearing, reversed the judgment, and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant's appeal from a criminal conviction in county court, where the statement of facts had initially been unavailable but was later filed, prompting a motion for rehearing. The county judge's certified statement revealed that, in setting punishment, the judge had relied on personal knowledge of the defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions, uncharged conduct, family circumstances, and bad reputation as a law-abiding citizen, none of which had been introduced as evidence during the trial. The appellate court held that this use of extra-record judicial knowledge to determine punishment constituted reversible error, similar to improper attempts to supplement the record with facts known only to the judge. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing was granted, the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves an appeal by a defendant convicted of murdering her husband, with the motion for rehearing arguing that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish her guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty. The court overruled the motion for rehearing, thereby upholding the conviction. The reasoning focused on evidence from the body's examination showing the head wound could not have been self-inflicted, the appellant's own statements placing only herself and her sleeping son at the home, and the body's position suggesting it had been arranged after the shooting, which only the appellant could have done. A dissent was noted but did not alter the outcome.

criminal law

The case concerned the sufficiency of an indictment for statutory rape under Texas law, which requires an allegation that the victim is a female under the age of eighteen. The indictment charged the defendant with assaulting and having carnal knowledge of Linda King, described as under fifteen and not the defendant's wife, but omitted any explicit statement that she was female or any feminine pronouns. The majority had affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the name "Linda" sufficiently indicated the victim was female. The dissenting opinion concluded that the indictment was fatally defective because all essential elements of the offense must be directly and explicitly averred without reliance on inference, implication, or judicial knowledge of names, and that the prosecution should therefore be dismissed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a conviction for possessing whiskey for sale in a dry area (Brown County, Texas), with the state seeking enhanced punishment under Article 61 of the Penal Code based on two alleged prior similar convictions. The defendant objected to the jury instructions allowing the increased penalty, arguing that the complaint and information failed to sufficiently describe the prior offenses. The court agreed, finding the pleadings defective under established precedents that require more detailed averments of prior convictions. It reversed the judgment and remanded the cause, holding that the insufficient allegations prevented proper application of the enhancement provisions and that evidence of the priors should have been withdrawn from the jury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a conviction for assault to murder without malice, with a sentence of three years in prison, on its second appeal. The appellant raised issues about the grand jury's legality and an indictment substitution, but these were previously decided against him and could not be reconsidered due to procedural failures, including untimely filing of bills of exception and a narrative transcript. The court examined the statement of facts from the main trial, which supported the verdict, and affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal from a murder conviction with a seven-year sentence, where the sole issue was the trial court's denial of a defense motion for continuance due to the absence of a material witness named Johnny McClendan. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. It found that the defendant had not failed to exercise due diligence, as this was the first continuance request and the first trial setting, with no indication of bad-faith delay in seeking subpoenas after the November 3, 1947, docket call. The sheriff's inability to serve the witness, who left the area on November 7, did not support a finding of insufficient diligence when the application was filed on November 6.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved L. E. Hargrove's conviction for theft of cattle, resulting in a two-year penitentiary sentence. The court noted a docket entry indicating a notice of appeal, but the record lacked evidence that this notice was entered into the court's minutes as mandated by Article 827 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to this procedural deficiency.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the conviction of appellant Porter for the murder without malice of Willie Lee Stearman, arising from a dispute over the location of a boundary fence between adjoining properties. The trial court instructed the jury on provoking the difficulty as a limitation on self-defense but declined to include an instruction on the defendant's right to arm himself while pursuing a peaceful mission to resolve the fence issue, and it excluded certain contemporaneous explanatory statements by the defendant as well as allowing questions about a prior misdemeanor conviction. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding that the limited self-defense instruction required a corresponding arming instruction and that the evidentiary rulings were erroneous under established precedent on verbal acts and impeachment. The underlying facts centered on conflicting accounts of who fired first after the fence was torn down.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with possessing whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area of Henderson County, Texas. After waiving a jury, the trial court convicted the defendant based on a search that recovered a small amount of whiskey hidden in a bed and observations of multiple vehicles briefly stopping at the defendant's home, with the defendant approaching cars while appearing to conceal items under his coat. On rehearing, the appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that the evidence created only strong suspicion and required impermissible presumptions upon presumptions to infer that sales had occurred, which was insufficient to support the finding of guilt. The court noted that the quantity of liquor found did not trigger any statutory presumption of intent to sell.

criminal law

The case involved an appeal from a conviction for burglary with a three-year prison sentence. The motion for new trial was overruled on April 16, 1948, after which the defendant was granted 80 days to perfect the appeal. That period expired on July 5, 1948, but the statement of facts was not filed until July 31, 1948. The court affirmed the judgment solely because the filing was 26 days late and therefore untimely under the applicable procedural rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned an appellant's motion for rehearing in a criminal matter, asserting that a bill of exception showed reversible error due to objectionable remarks by the prosecuting attorney. The appellant relied on prior decisions in Crow v. State and Stalling v. State, where no curative instruction was given to the jury. Here, however, the trial court had instructed the jury to disregard the remarks. The court therefore overruled the motion for rehearing, distinguishing the cited precedents on that basis.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of appellant for the murder of Lewis W. Chamberlain, for which a death sentence was assessed. The court affirmed the judgment after reviewing the record, which contained no exceptions to the court's charge, bills of exception, or special requested charges. The evidence established the defendant's guilt through a series of premeditated actions, including borrowing a pistol days in advance, shooting the victim three times before bludgeoning him, concealing the body, forging title documents to sell the victim's car, and dividing the proceeds, all without justification or mitigating circumstances. The court concluded that these facts warranted the jury's imposition of the death penalty as meeting the demands of the law.

criminal law

The case involved a relator who was indicted for the murder with malice of his wife and sought bail through a writ of habeas corpus after the trial court denied it. The court examined historical Texas constitutional provisions on bail for capital offenses, along with precedents interpreting when the proof is evident enough to deny bail, ultimately applying the rule that bail must be refused only if the evidence clearly leads to the conclusion that the accused is guilty and would likely receive capital punishment. Based on the facts of the shootings, the relator's background, and the circumstances of the incident, the court found that the evidence did not meet this standard and reversed the denial of bail, setting it at $12,500.

criminal law