McElroy v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Sargent v. State

    518 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)   Cited 15 times

    Caraway v. State, 489 S.W.2d 106 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); accord, Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Crawford v. State, 511 S.W.2d 14 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Further, this Court has also held that an instruction eliminating accident as a defense, under Art. 42, V.A.P.C., is proper, Marrufo v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 398, 357 S.W.2d 761 (1962); Smith v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 234, 225 S.W.2d 846 (1949); McElroy v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 445, 115 S.W.2d 971 (1938), notwithstanding the fact that the indictment alleged only murder with malice. See Hodges v. State. 160 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 272 S.W.2d 902 (1954).

  2. Hilliard v. State

    513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 20 times
    Construing predecessor statute

    In each instance this Court held that Article 42 was properly applied. See also Marrufo v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. R., 357 S.W.2d 761; Ward v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. R., 109 S.W.2d 207 (opinion on rehearing); McElroy v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. R., 115 S.W.2d 971; Smith v. State, 329 F.2d 498 (5th Cir.); Washburn v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. R., 318 S.W.2d 627, cert. den., 359 U.S. 965, 79 S.Ct. 876, 3 L.Ed.2d 834. Appellant contends that by charging under Article 42 the court has deprived the jury of its right and duty to pass upon the necessary element of intent to kill.

  3. Caraway v. State

    489 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 8 times

    This Court has also held that it is proper for a trial court to refuse to charge the jury on the law of accident as a defense in murder cases, where the killing was committed while the defendant was preparing or committing a felony. Hodges v. State, 160 Tex.Crim. R., 272 S.W.2d 902 (1954); Smith v. State, 154 Tex.Crim. R., 225 S.W.2d 846 (1949); McElroy v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. R., 115 S.W.2d 971 (1938). Further, this Court has held that an instruction eliminating accident as a defense, under Art. 42, V.A.P.C. is proper, Marrufo v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. R., 357 S.W.2d 761 (1962); Smith v. State, supra; McElroy v. State, supra, notwithstanding the fact that the indictment alleged only murder with malice.

  4. Le Marr v. State

    308 S.W.2d 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 4 times

    22 Tex.Jur., par. 150, page 669; Hassell v. State, 80 Tex.Crim. R., 188 S.W. 991; Hart v. State, 87 Tex.Crim. R., 219 S.W. 821 and Osborn v. State, 159 Tex.Crim. R., 263 S.W.2d 263. The pistol slug found by the officer at the scene was also admissible in evidence. See 22 Tex.Jur., par. 200, page 791; McElroy v. State, 134 Tex.Crim. R., 115 S.W.2d 971 and McNeil v. State, 142 Tex.Crim. R., 154 S.W.2d 653. Finding no reversible error, appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled.