Maddox v. the State

4 Citing cases

  1. Carlile v. State

    18 S.W.2d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929)   Cited 2 times

    We think it unnecessary to discuss the matter further but refer to the following authorities which bear somewhat generally on the subject. Hardin v. State, 104 Tex.Crim. R., 283 S.W. 517; Dickey v. State, 99 S.W. 269; Patterson v. State, 105 Tex. Crim. 398, 289 S.W. 398; Gardner v. State, 44 Tex.Crim. R.; Duque v. State, 56 Tex.Crim. R.; Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217, 173 S.W. 1026. The motion for rehearing is overruled.

  2. Quinn v. State

    279 S.W. 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 1926)   Cited 2 times

    The statements of deceased made to Wash McGrew and Jim McGrew were properly admitted in evidence as res gestae declarations. As to the incompleteness of the bills complaining of the refusal of special charges, in addition to Crouchette v. State, Tex.Crim. Rep. 271 S.W. 99, we refer to Denton v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 58, 172 S.W. 796; Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217, 173 S.W. 1026; Jones v. State, 74 Tex. Crim. 205, 167 S.W. 1110; Medford v. State, 86 Tex. Crim. 237; 216 S.W. 175; Lowe v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 226 S.W. 674; Jones v. State, 89 Tex.Crim. Rep., 232 S.W. 847; Middleton v. State, 86 Tex.Crim. Rep., 217 S.W. 1046. The motion for rehearing is overruled.

  3. Hays v. the State

    90 Tex. Crim. 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 1921)   Cited 7 times

    Rep.; Duque v. State, 56 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217, 173 S.W. Rep., 1026. The special charge entirely ignores the foregoing legal proposition.

  4. Flewellen v. the State

    83 Tex. Crim. 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917)   Cited 8 times

    Upon trial of murder there was no error in excluding testimony with reference to defendant's conduct some five months before the homicide, in taking no offense at what was said about the woman with whom he was infatuated and who afterwards was the cause of the difficulty. Following Maddox v. State, 76 Tex. Crim. 217. 7. — Same — Evidence — Impeaching Witness — Rule Stated.