G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1983 ·
…a person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual under circumstances that would constitute murder under section 19.02 of this code, except that he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1982 ·
…under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause
at p. 738
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kaleb Ray Eisenmann v. the State of Texas
See Wortham, 412 S.W.3d at 555 ; Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grey, Steven Carl
The success or failure of a particular trial strategy is not a measure of an attorney’s competence”); Commonwealth v. Pagan, 625 N.E.2d 579, 581 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) (counsel was not ineffective in failing to ask for manslaughter instruction); People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256, 1269 (Colo. 1985) (trial court is not obligated to instruct on a lesser offense “unless either the prosecution or the defense requests such instruction” and “[i]n the absence of a request by the defendant, it may reasonably be assumed that he elected to take his chance on an outright acquittal or conviction of …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grey v. State
(2×)
The success or failure of a particular trial strategy is not a measure of an attorney's competence"); Commonwealth v. Pagan, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 788 , 625 N.E.2d 579, 581 (1994) (counsel was not ineffective in failing to ask for manslaughter instruction); People v. Romero, 694 P.2d 1256, 1269 (Colo. 1985) (trial court is not obligated to instruct on a lesser offense "unless either the prosecution or the defense requests such instruction" and "[i]n the absence of a request by the defendant, it may reasonably be assumed that he elected to take his chance on an outright acquittal or conviction of the…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Abel Rios v. State
Ford , 38 S.W.3d at 840 ; McQueen , 984 S.W.2d at 717 , citing Humphries v. State , 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Abel Rios v. State
Ford, 38 S.W.3d at 840 ; McQueen, 984 S.W.2d at 717 , citing Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shane Edward Drousche v. State
Humphries v. State , 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Willis v. State
Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kimes v. State
Cf. Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Rodriguez v. State, 625 S.W.2d 97, 98 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1981, no pet.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Chandler
(2×)
Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hardaway v. State
Jefcoat v. State, 644 S.W.2d 719, 724 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Braudrick, supra; Paige v. State, 573 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Goodwin v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Braudrick v. State, 572 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Tex.Crim.App.1978.) Here, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that appellant committed an act clearly dangerous to human life with intent to cause serious bodily injury, namely, kicking Durkee in the head, and that he died as a result of that act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ex Parte Buggs
That exceptional circumstance “is not an element of voluntary manslaughter, but is instead in the nature of a defense to murder that reduces that offense to voluntary manslaughter,” ibid, and Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); see Cobarrubio v. State (Tex.Cr.App., No. 63,801, delivered January 12, 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hobson v. State
Penal Code, § 19.04(a), (b) and (c), is “the same as murder ‘except that he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause,’ ” Braudrick v. State, 572 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). 8 The exception “is not an element of voluntary manslaughter but is instead in the nature of a defense to murder that reduces that offense to voluntary manslaughter,” ibid, and Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schoelman v. State
Penal Code, § 19.04(a), (b) and (c), is “the same as murder ‘except that he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause,’ ” Braudrick v. State, 572 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). 18 The exception “is not an element of voluntary manslaughter, but is instead in the nature of a defense to murder that reduces that offense to voluntary manslaughter,” ibid, and Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Braudrick v. State, 572 S.W.2d 709, 710 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Augustine Pina v. State
(2×)
See id. (citing Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Delfino Guzman v. State
See id. (citing, e.g., Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Grey, Steven Carl
(2×)
See Humphries v. State , 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. Crim.
cited
Cited "see"
Ford v. State
See ibid, (citing Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737 , 738 *841 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981)).
cited
Cited "see"
McQueen v. State
See Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Travis v. State
See Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (stabbing in the course of a heated argument); Schoelman v. State, 644 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (shooting after an argument over a ring).
cited
Cited "see"
Nobles v. State
See Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (stabbing in the course of a heated argument); Schoelman v. State, 644 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (shooting after an argument over a ring).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sattiewhite v. State
(2×)
See Humphries v. State, 615 S.W.2d 737 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (stabbing in the course of a heated argument); Schoelman v. State, 644 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (shooting after an argument over a ring).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary Douglas HUMPHRIES, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
60721.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 13, 1981.
Ray Montgomery, on appeal only, Houston, for appellant., Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Calvin A. Hartmann and Candelario Elizondo, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Odom, Davis, McCormick.
Cited by 47 opinions | Published
[*738] OPINION
ODOM, Judge.This is an appeal from a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. Punishment was assessed at confinement for 16 years.
In his sole ground of error appellant contends that the trial court erred in submitting a charge on voluntary manslaughter since he was indicted for the offense of murder. The appellant advances an argument similar to the one in Braudrick v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 572 S.W.2d 709, 710:
“Appellant argues that acting ‘under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause’ is an element of the offense of voluntary manslaughter, and that no evidence in the record supports proof of that element. We hold that such fact is not an element of voluntary manslaughter, but is instead in the nature of a defense to murder that reduces that offense to voluntary manslaughter.”
As we held in Braudrick at 711:
“We therefore hold that causing death ‘under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause’ is in the nature of a defense to murder that reduces that offense to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, and that the State need not prove such influence beyond a reasonable doubt to establish voluntary manslaughter, but that if raised by the evidence it must prove the absence of such influence beyond a reasonable doubt to establish murder.
“With this clear understanding of the nature of the ‘immediate influence’ element, appellant’s grounds of error actually are tantamount to a claim that there is no evidence to support submission of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The jury in returning a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter found all of the statutory elements of murder were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and further found a reasonable doubt on the defensive issue. We find the evidence was sufficient to support such reasonable doubt. The grounds of error are overruled.”
In the instant case the record reflects that appellant stabbed the victim in the course of a heated argument. Therefore, we find no error was committed by the submission of a charge on voluntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense of murder, even over appellant’s objection.
The judgment is affirmed.