Banks v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Guyton v. State

    472 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)   Cited 4 times
    In Guyton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.Cr.App. 1971), the appellate record did not reach the appellate court until over 5 years after the trial.

    Article 35, supra, Note 5. Further, mere proof that an accused was not bright or was of weak mind does not raise the issue of insanity. Kirby v. State, 49 Tex.Crim. R., 93 S.W. 1030; Coffey v. State, 60 Tex.Crim. R., 131 S.W. 216; Hogue v. State, 65 Tex.Crim. R., 146 S.W. 905; Craven v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. R., 247 S.W. 515; Banks v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. R., 112 S.W.2d 745. "

  2. Fuller v. State

    423 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)   Cited 24 times

    Article 35, supra, Note 5. Further, mere proof that an accused was not bright or was of weak mind does not raise the issue of insanity. Kirby v. State, 49 Tex.Crim. R., 93 S.W. 1030; Coffey v. State, 60 Tex.Crim. R., 131 S.W. 216; Hogue v. State, 65 Tex.Crim. R., 146 S.W. 905; Craven v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. 328, 247 S.W. 515; Banks v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. R., 112 S.W.2d 745. In a number of cases this Court has held that the evidence was insufficient to raise the defense of insanity and that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge thereon over the timely presented objection or special requested charge of the defendant.

  3. Washington v. State

    165 Neb. 275 (Neb. 1957)   Cited 7 times
    In Washington v. State, 165 Neb. 275, 281, 85 N.W.2d 509, 513 (1957), which antedates the Nebraska Evidence Rules, this court stated: "`[E]vidence of the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the crime... may be introduced... to show absence of any deliberate or premeditated design.'"

    In this case the defendant took the witness stand and on direct and cross-examination testified in detail to the events of the day, his work, his visits to taverns, his experiences at home, and as to what was said and done before the fatal shooting.        Language in Banks v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 541, 112 S.W.2d 745, 746, on motion for rehearing, seems applicable here. It is: 'So far as the facts reveal his testimony was clearly and intelligently given, and if accepted by the jury as true made out a complete and perfect defense of accidental killing.