Gray v. the State

23 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. State

    965 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)   Cited 204 times
    Finding provocation requires, inter alia, proof that an act was done for the purpose and with the intent of giving the defendant a pretext for harming the other

    Intent is a matter of fact, to be determined from all of the circumstances. E.g., Gray v. State, 55 Tex.Crim. 90, 114 S.W. 635, 645-46 (1908). What a defendant's "intentions were was concealed within his own mind and can only be determined from his words, acts, and conduct."

  2. Biegun v. State

    58 S.E.2d 149 (Ga. 1950)   Cited 28 times
    In Biegun v. State, 206 Ga. 618 (58 S.E.2d 149), it was said, I believe incorrectly, that as a matter of law a baby did not become quick until four months after conception.

    The State having charged the defendant with having committed an abortion upon the deceased by the insertion of an instrument or substance into her female organs, which produced the physical injuries causing her death, and the physician and toxicologist who performed the autopsy having testified as to the conditions they found in such organs, and it appearing that such organs contained in the jar were in the same condition as they were in at the time they were taken from her body, such evidence was of assistance to the jury in determining for themselves, upon viewing such parts of the body, whether there were actual injuries in the cervix and womb, and also the question of the pregnancy of the deceased and the age of the foetus. See, in this connection, Commonwealth v. Brown, 80 Mass. 419; People v. Hobbs, 297 Ill. 399 ( 130 N.E. 779); Gray v. State, 55 Tex.Crim. 90 ( 114 S.W. 635); 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (11th ed.), 1294, § 763; annotations in 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 238, and 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 513. 3. The refusal of the court to permit counsel for the defendant, on cross-examination, to ask a witness for the State whether the deceased woman did not tell him she was married and had a child, was not error, as complained of in ground 8.

  3. Gaines v. the State

    58 Tex. Crim. 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910)   Cited 7 times

    On question of necessity of charge on provoking difficulty: Rhea v. State, 37 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Taylor v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. 552; Johnson v. State, 43 Tex. Crim. 476, 66 S.W. Rep., 845; Laws v. State, 101 S.W. Rep., 987; Smart v. State, 101 S.W. Rep., 989; Gray v. State, 55 Tex. Crim. 90, 114 S.W. Rep., 635. On question of the court's charge in using the phrase "in a peaceable manner:" Craiger v. State, 48 Tex.Crim.

  4. In re Chesses

    388 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Addressing claim for disclosure under TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 48.101(c)

    2010 WL 1780133 at *3. We end with the story of Don Gray. See Gray v. State, 55 Tex.Crim. 90, 114 S.W. 635 (Tex.Crim.App.1908). Gray shot and killed Will Phillips on January 12, 1907.

  5. Sexson v. Commonwealth

    239 Ky. 177 (Ky. Ct. App. 1931)   Cited 8 times

    A court will not, however, order a body to be disinterred unless there is a strong showing that it is necessary and the interests of justice require it." To same effect see Gray v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 90, 114 S.W. 635, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 513, and notes. That the court in a proper case has power to order an autopsy is well settled.

  6. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Legacy of Life, Inc.

    645 F.3d 739 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 20 times
    Providing that attorney's fees may be recovered by the prevailing party in a breach of contract action

    Other Texas courts had previously reached similar conclusions. See Foster v. Foster, 220 S.W. 215, 218 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1920, no writ) (finding no property right in the body of a deceased, but finding a privilege to control the place and manner of burial); Gray v. State, 55 Tex.Crim. 90, 114 S.W. 635, 641 (1908) (finding no traditional property right in a dead body, but noting existence of certain rights including "the right to the possession of the body in the same condition in which death leaves it."). Beginning on March 16, 1.927, the notation "writ refused" indicates that the Texas Supreme Court found that the principles of law declared in the opinion of the court of appeals were correctly determined, and a decision in which the Texas Supreme Court refuses a writ of error is as binding as a decision of the Supreme Court itself.

  7. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Legacy of Life, Inc.

    55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1102 (Tex. 2012)   Cited 86 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding policy's definitions of terms control

    As our sister court in Colorado correctly explained: See also Gray v. State, 55 Tex.Crim. 90, 114 S.W. 635, 641 (1908) (stating that “[a]t common law there can be no property in a dead human body; and after burial of such dead body it becomes a part and parcel of the ground to which it was committed. Nevertheless, the authorities hold the right to bury a corpse and preserve its remains is a legal right which the courts will recognize and protect.

  8. Dennis v. State

    198 Tenn. 325 (Tenn. 1955)   Cited 10 times
    Concluding same under a prior version of the statute

    " Under Note 19 is cited the case of Gray v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 90, 114 S.W. 635, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 513, in which a Court ordered exhumation on the issue of self-defense where the State claimed deceased was shot in the back. It is clear from these authorities and others, that in the absence of a statute the Court has always had the discretion and power to order an exhumation and autopsy where the necessity for same sufficiently is made to appear.

  9. In re Disinterment of Jarvis

    244 Iowa 1025 (Iowa 1953)   Cited 4 times

    25 C.J.S., Dead Bodies, section 4b, page 1023. See also Kusky v. Laderbush, 96 N.H. 286, 74 A.2d 546, 21 A.L.R.2d 536 (where it was held unreasonable to deny a litigant's motion for an autopsy under proper safeguards), and annotation 538; Gray v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. App. 90, 114 S.W. 635, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 513, 521; Painter v. United States F. G. Co., 123 Md. 301, 91 A. 158, 160; Ullendorff v. Brown, 156 Fla. 655, 24 So.2d 37, 40; Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Griesa, C.C., Kan., 156 F. 398; 15 Am. Jur., Dead Bodies, section 19. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 2221, pages 210, 211, states: "The exhumation or the autopsy of a corpse, when useful to ascertain facts in litigation, should of course be performed.

  10. State v. Wood

    127 Me. 197 (Me. 1928)   Cited 3 times

    8 R. C. L., 697. The leading case directly in point is that of Gray, Appt. v. State of Texas, (Tex.Crim. App.) 114 S.W. 635, quoted as authority in 22 L. R. A., 513, and 14 Ann. Cas., 471. In upholding its authority to grant such a petition when it appeared that examination of the corpse might assist in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of the accused, the court in this latter case said, "Courts were instituted for the purpose of promoting justice, the ascertainment of the truth in all controversies pending in such tribunals, and for the protection of life, liberty, and property.