This information was provided by Debrah Modrall from an email sent to her in 2000.
To All Researchers interested in the murder of B.F. Maples;
I just received some very exciting news from the Tx. Archives. It gives me
great hope that the actual transcription of the trial will be located!
Mr. Brice the Reference Archivist at the Archives was able to locate an
opinion in the case of James Lafferty VS The State Of Texas. There was also
a case # 711 associated with the opinion. Unfortunately when he ordered
case file # 711 to be sent over to the Archives from their off-site
facility & found that it was not the case # we need. He does plan to do
some more investigation into the case files to see if he can come up with
another number which will produce the case file we are seeking.
Following is the opinion in case # 711,
James Lafferty VS The State
In Court Of Criminal Appeals
Appeal from Uvalde County:
“Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree and his punishment
assessed at seventy-five years in the penitentiary. Application for
continuance was made for the testimony of Naylor, Wall and Friday. By
Naylor it was expected to prove that Robt. Maples, son of the deceased,
made statements contradictory of his testimony in the trial. Maples was not
interrogated with reference to the aledged statements. Had he been
questioned in regard to same the presumption obtains that he would have
told the truth, and if true would have been admitted by him. But as
presented to us the record shows that, if true, they were not material.
By Wall defendant expected to prove that during the morning preceding the
killing in the afternoon, he saw deceased armed, watching defendant, and he
seemed angry. And by Friday, that deceased a short time before the day of
the homicide made threats against the life of the defendant, and that
defendant was informed of same.
This testimony if addressed is not probably true, nor in the face of the
evidence in this case, was it material to defendants cause, if true. The
evidence is unquestioned that deceased was traveling in his wagon along the
public road: that where he reached the house of defendants brother, and
where defendant resided, he stopped to partially unload his wagon so as to
be able to cross the creek, the crossing being difficult; that while
deceased was so engaged, defendant, who had been standing at the yard gate,
near by and in full view of deceased, went into the house secured a double
barrel shot gun, placed the cap on it, and proceeded to where the deceased
was at work and shot him to death.
If the conflict between the inculpatory facts and those set out in the
application is such as to render it altogether improbable that the facts
stated in the application are material or probably true, the continuance
should be refused, an the new trial based? thereupon should also be
refused. But if they are material and probably true, the case should not be
continued unless the facts are inculpatory facts. ” McAdams VS State, 24ct.
app.101, Browning VS state 26 ct. app.443; Covey VS State 23ct. app.388;
Massey VS State 30 ct. app. 64; Pruitt Vs. State 30 ct. app. 156.
2. Bingham on cross-examination by state, testified that defendant made
certain statements to him immediately after the killing, and further stated
that he had testified to everything that was said by defendant, and witness
answering no, defendants council put a leading question to the witness. We
see no reason for revising the descretion of the court in this matter, in
sustaining the states objection to the question.
3. The courts charge was antecised because the law of murder was submitted,
and because the law of manslaughter was not given in charge of the jury. We
are unable to appreciate the points suggested. If the testimony before us
is to be relied on the killing was murder, and the jury would have been
justified in convicting of the first degree.The charge in it’s entirety was
very favorable to the defendant, even to the extent of submitting the issue
of self defense, which we think was not suggested by the evidence. We find
no error in the record and the judgement is affirmed.
W.L. Davidson Judge
Filed Nov. 1st, 1893 “
RSS