These documents were provided by Debrah Modrall.
Appeal notes – Page 1
Appeal notes – Page 2
Appeal notes – Page 3
Appeal notes – Page 4
Transcription as written:
James Lofferty, Appellant
vs
The State of Texas
In the Court of Criminal
Appeals of the State of Texas
October Term AD 1893
To the Honorable Court of Appeals of the State of Texas:
James Lafferty, the appellant herein, would respectfully assign as error in the trial of this cause in the court below, the following, towit:
First. The Court errored in overruling the defendants application for a continuance, as pointed out in defendants Bill of Exception, No. 1. because said application was sufficient in law and showed due and sufficient diligence upon the part of the defendant to procure the testimony of the witnesses named therein, and because the testimony of said witnesses was material to the defense in this cause.
The testimony of the witness Dug [Douglas E.] Naylor being material 1st to discredit the testimony of the state’s witness on the trial of this ??? Bob Maples by showing that he had made contradictory statements about the circumstances of the killing of Ben Maples by defendant. 2nd to show that the deceased, according to the statement of his son just after the killing, made to an officer, was the aggressor, and not this defendant, that deceased was armed and advansing on defendant with his gun at the time he was shot by defendant, and that he was do intent and determined on attacking defendant that he could not be kept back; and because the testimony of said Dug Naylor will further show, and thereby discredit the theory of the state, and the state witness, that an exammination of the body, and the wounds thereon, and the premises where deceased was killed, just after the killing that at the time deceased was shot he had his arm ?? which the shot is shown to have passed in the position his arm would have been in presenting a gun to shoot and not hanging down by his side.
Second. The testimony of the witness Wall is material to show the object and intent of deceased towards the defendant, by showing by his acts and looks that he was there for the purpose of raising a difficulty with defendant, that he was watching around the premises of defendent before defendent went out of the house and that he seemed to be angry.
Third. That the testimony of the witness [William] Friday was material to show that defendant had sufficient and reasonable grounds to fear and expect an unlawful attack upon his person by deceased, by reason of deceased having stated to the witness Friday, a short time before the killing, that he was going to kill defendant by said witness that acting upon this knowledge of the threats made by deceased and seeing him about his premises armed and in a threating manner and attitude towards deft he was justified in shooting deceased.
Second. The court erred in refusing the defendants request in the following, (also pointed out in defendants Bill of Exception No. 2) towit: After the exammination in chief of defendants witness, Bingham, he was turned over to the state and was asked by the state, “if defendant did not tell him a few moments after the shooting of deceased by defendant, that he, defendant, had had a row the day before, whereupon the witness answered that, “defendant said to him a few minutes after the shooting of deceased by defendant that Maples had sent for him the day before and when he went over to see him Maples cursed and abused him.
Fourth. The court erred in the 13th paragraph of its charge in not sufficiently defining when homicide is justifiable, this being a fundamental requirement. the facts and issues of this can clearly requiring a full and complete charge upon justifiable homicide. The charge here complained of being insufficient, the fury even misled thereby to the injury and prejudice of defendants rights in the trial.
Fifth. The court erred in submitting to the jury the 16th paragraph of its charge, because not warranted by the evidence adduced on the trial, therefore not the law of the case, and mascalculated to mislead the jury to defendants injury and did so mislead them as shown by their verdict herein.
Sixth. The court erred in submitting to the jury the 25th paragraph of its charge, because the same was unauthorized by the evidenced addused on the trial, and was not the law of the case as made by the evidense, and was calculated to confuse, mislead and misdirect the minds of the jury as to defendants rights and privileges in the premises, under the law.
Seventh. The court erred in submitting paragraph 26th of its charge to the jury, because it was not the law of the case as made by the evidence on the trial, and for the reasons set forth in the sixth assignment of error.
Eighth. The court erred in submitting the 27th paragraph of its charges to the jury, becasue the charge was no where defines and informs the jury what ….. [end of document provided for transcription]
RSS