# Gray v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 11, 1908 · 55 Tex. Crim. 90

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3942693

## Case

- **Full name:** Don Gray v. the State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 11, 1908
- **Citations:** 55 Tex. Crim. 90; 114 S.W. 635; 1908 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 484
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brooks
- **Judges:** Ramsey, Brooks
- **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3942693

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that ”[a]t common law there can be no property in a dead human body; and after burial of such dead body it becomes a part and parcel of die ground to which it was committed. Nevertheless, the authorities hold the right to bury a corpse and preserve its remains is a leg…
- finding no traditional property right in a dead body, but noting existence of certain rights including “the right to the possession of the body in the same condition in which death leaves it.”

## Opinion text

*106
BROOKS, Judge
(dissenting).—I dissent from the opinion rendered in this case. Waiving the question as to whether a court under any circumstances could order the body of the deceased exhumed for .the purpose of demonstrating whether he was shot in the back or in front, will say that this is not a case that requires any such action since the evidence shows clearly that the defendant provoked the difficulty. See Bowers v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 185 . The defendant’s uncontradicted testimony shows that he approached the deceased, and, in substance, asked him why he insulted his wife. After deceased practically admitted having done so, appellant proceeded to curse and abuse him. Among other things appellant called the deceased a damn bastardly son-of-a-bitch, deceased starting away. Appellant followed and continued to abuse him. Finally deceased turned, and in an angry tone and manner said, “Damn you, shut up,” or words to that effect, and made a demonstration as if to cut appellant with a knife. ¡Now, this statement makes the appellant guilty of at least manslaughter on the theory of- the imperfect right of self-defense; that is to say, if he provoked the difficulty with the intent to kill, it matters not what the provocation may have been—even insuR to his wife—it would be murder. If he provoked the difficulty without said intention, it would be manslaughter. So it follows that it is utterly immaterial whether he shot the deceased in the back or shot him in front. Being an immaterial issue' in this case, under the testimony of the appellant himself, it certainly was not error in the court refusing to exhume the body for that purpose.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3942693. Public record. Not legal advice.