
    COLLINS v. STATE.
    (No. 6057.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 12, 1921.)
    1. Homicide <&wkey;300 (8) — Refusal to charge on law of threats held error.
    In homicide prosecution where there was testimony that deceased had threatened defendant and had twice made attacks on him within the hour preceding the homicide, court’s refusal to charge on the law of threats in connection with self-defense held error.
    2. Homicide <&wkey;300(8) — Evidence of communicated threats and overt act requires charge on law of threats.
    If there is evidence of communicated threats and of an overt act by deceased at the time of the homicide not amounting to an actual attack, the court should charge the jury affirmatively on the law of threats in connection with self-defense.
    3. Homicide &wkey;>l90(9) — That threats were communicated to defendant may be proved by person hearing communication.
    Proof that threats made by deceased were communicated to the defendant may be made by any person who heard the communication.
    4. Homicide &wkey;> 190 (6) — Statement of deceased showing animus toward defendant is a threat.
    Deceased’s statement to be admissible need not amount to a direct threat against defendant, if it shows the state of mind or animus of deceased toward defendant.
    Appeal from District Court, Taylor County ; W. R. Ely, Judge.
    Leroy Collins was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Callieutt & Johnson, of Corsicana, and .Kirby, King & Keeble, of Abilene, for appellant.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant and deceased were young negroes working on a cotton wharf. There cam'e ill will between them, and the evidence indicates that deceased was the aggressive party in these matters. On the day of the killing the deceased had made two attacks upon appellant,- one with a knife and the other with a “sledge hammer,” as the witnesses call it, weighing about three or four pounds. He was made to desist in both attacks. Appellant in the latter attack moved away from the deceased rapidly in order to. avoid being struck. In following appellant deceased remarked that he would knock his “G-d-brains out,” and when he was ordered not to strike with the hammer he left, stating that he was going to get his pistol and kill the appellant. This was communicated to appellant. Appellant immediately left, went to his boarding place, got a shotgun, and returned. About the time or just prior to the return of appellant, deceased came back. They met upon the platform, and appellant shot and killed deceased. The evidence for the state does not show a justification for the killing, and from the state’s standpoint the verdict of manslaughter would be justified. This all happened in a short time from the time the threat was made by deceased against appellant. The time elapsing seems not to have been over an hour from the time deceased made the first assault and the time of the killing. That both deceased and defendant left the platform immediately after the hammer transaction seems to be practically conceded by the facts. The state’s testimony is to the effect that at the time deceased was shot he was not advancing upon appellant, though walking in his direction. A legitimate deduction from the state’s testimony would be that he was not advancing upon appellant with any unlawful design. The testimony for appellant is directly the reverse. There is testimony from various witnesses to the effect that when appellant came in sight with the gun deceased was notified, and advanced towards him, and threw his hand to his hip pocket. Some of the witnesses state that deceased said at the time that he did not purpose to run from appellant. These matters have been stated in a general way, rather in substance than in detail.

The most serious question presented is the failure of the court to charge the law with reference to threats. An exception was reserved to the court’s charge for such failure, and special instructions were requested and refused. We are of opinion that the court was in error. The rule seems to be well settled that,- if there is evidence of communicated threats and of an overt act by deceased at the time of the homicide not amounting to an actual attack, the court should charge the jury affirmatively on the law of threats in connection with self-defense. Por collation of authorities, see Branch’s Ann. P. C., § 2083. But where the danger is actual the authorities are to the effect that it is not necessary to charge the law of threats in connection with self-defense, but that is only where the danger is actual and not apparent or threatened. Penton v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 323, 109 S. W. 937, is authority for this statement Threats made an hour or more before the fatal difficulty are not regarded as threats made during the difficulty, where the difficulty was not continuous ; and it has also been held that the fact that threats were made direct to the defendant will not excuse the court from charging the law of threats in connection with self-defense, where such threats were made prior to the difficulty. Thomson v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 384, 93 S. W. 111; Penton v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 323, 109 S. W. 937. Proof that threats made by deceased were copimunicat-ed to the defendant may be made by any person who heard the communication, citing Logan v. State, 17 Tex. App. 58. Nor is it necessary that the statement.of deceased be tanamount to a direct threat against defendant if it showed the state of mind or animus of deceased toward the defendant. Bethune v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 166, 90 S. W. 1014; Bradley v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 402, 132 S. W. 484; Jennings v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 424, 132 S. W. 473; McMillan v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 319, 143 S. W. 1174. This case was one of ill feeling, acts of and threats by deceased against the appellant. Deceased, seems to have been somewhat’aggressive in manifesting his feeling and opposition to appellant. These threats were made prior to the shooting, and appellant was made aware of the threats and knew about them, and anticipating this he went home and got his shotgun. Deceased had stated that he was going to kill appellant, and when interfered with when seeking to use the hammer he left and said he was going home to get his pistol. We are of opinion, under these circumstances, threats are in the case, and the court should have charged that issue to the jury.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. 
      eSmoFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     