Cook v. State

<p>1. —Murder—Self-Defense—Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence raised the issue of self-defense, the court’s failure to charge thereon was reversible error.</p> <p>2. —Same—Exculpatory Statement—Charge of Court—Self-Defense.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of murder, the State introduced in evidence the declarations of the defendant which embraced the issue of self-defense and to this extent was exculpatory, the court’s failure to instruct the jury that the State was bound by such declarations, unless they were shown by the evidence to be untrue, in the absence of a charge on self-defense, was reversible error. Following Jones v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 20, and other cases.</p> <p>3. —Same—Buie Stated—Circumstantial Evidence.</p> <p>While the falsity of such declarations need not be shown by positive testimony, yet they must be. shown to be false, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, and such a charge must be given when the State relies for conviction alone upon the admissions and confessions of the accused, where the same contained exculpatory matter.</p> <p>4. —Same—Charge of Court—Self-Defense—Buie Stated.</p> <p>Where the State did not rely solely upon his confession to show that defendant killed deceased, there being circumstantial evidence authorizing a conviction, yet where the court failed to charge on self-defense as raised by the exculpatory statement and failed to charge on such exculpatory statement, the same was reversible error.</p> <p>5. —Same—Opinion of Trial Judge.</p> <p>Although the trial judge may have believed that the exculpatory part of defendant’s confession was not true, it was, nevertheless, necessary to submit the issue to the jury.</p> <p>6. —Same—Evidence—Undisclosed Motive.</p> <p>In the absence of any proof that defendant was aware of the fact that deceased had been shot at in February, some months before the shooting, and that for this reason he had purchased a gun which he carried on the day of the killing, such testimony was inadmissible against defendant to show the undisclosed motive of deceased in carrying the gun. Following Pratt v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Pep., 281, and other cases.</p> <p>7. —Same—Insanity—Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where there was no evidence that the defendant did not know right from wrong or was insane at the time of the offense, there was no error on the court’s failure to charge on insanity.</p> <p>8. —Same—Manslaughter—Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where the evidence did not raise the issue of manslaughter, there was no error in the court’s failure to charge thereon.</p> <p>9. —Same—Murder—Change of Law—Degrees of Murder.</p> <p>The Legislature, by taking the definition of murder in the first and murder in second degree and consolidating them into one offense, did not declare that the elements constituting those offenses, or either of them, should no longer be punishable, but merely substituted a new penalty.</p>