Acosta v. State
| Decision Date | 27 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3762.) |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 870 |
| Parties | ACOSTA et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Hugh L. Umphres, Judge.
Jesus Acosta and Samual Rosas were convicted of robbery, and they appeal. Affirmed as to Jesus Acosta, and appeal of Samual Rosas dismissed.
J. Marvin Jones, of Amarillo, for appellants. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellants were convicted under an indictment charging them with robbery, and their punishment assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
Since said conviction, and while this case was pending in this court on appeal, it is made to appear by affidavits on file that appellant Samual Rosas has escaped from custody. The state's motion to dismiss the appeal as to said appellant is therefore sustained, and this cause dismissed as to said appellant Samual Rosas.
There are no bills of exception in the record. The special charges requested by appellant were all given; consequently, if the evidence sustains the verdict, the judgment as to Jesus Acosta must be affirmed. Margarito Estrada testified that the two appellants agreed to show him the way to a barber shop; that they carried him into a room, drew a razor on him, and told him to hold up his hands, and when he did so they went through his pockets and took his money. This made a case, if the jury believed the testimony; and evidently they did believe it. Appellant contends that a razor is not per se a deadly weapon. We are inclined to believe that all mankind know that death can be inflicted by a razor in the hands of a grown man. At any rate, the death penalty was not assessed, but only five years adjudged. If the razor should be held not to be a deadly weapon, as the indictment alleged that appellants made an unlawful assault on Margarito Estrada and by violence did put the said Estrada in fear of life and bodily injury, the evidence supports the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed as to Jesus Acosta, and the appeal is dismissed as to Samual Rosas.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denham v. State
...knife to be a deadly weapon. This is common knowledge that any lay witness is competent to testify to. In the case of Acosta v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 643, 179 S.W. 870 (1915), this Court "Appellant contends that a razor is not per se a deadly weapon. We are inclined to believe that all mankin......
-
Nino v. State, NUMBER 13-18-00642-CR
...820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); McCain, 22 S.W3dat 503; Thomas v. State, 821 S.W.2d 616, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Acosta v. State, 179 S.W. 870, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915) ("We are inclined to believe that all mankind know that death can be inflicted by a razor in the hands of a grown man.")......
-
Garza v. State, No. 2-06-284-CR (Tex. App. 6/28/2007)
...to believe that all mankind know that death can be inflicted by a razor in the hands of a grown man.") (quoting Acosta v. State, 77 Tex. Crim. 643, 179 S.W. 870, 871 (1915)); Johnson v. State, 919 S.W.2d 473, 477 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd) (holding that no serious bodily injury......
-
Hammons v. State
...weapon depends on the evidence in each case) (Davis, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Moreover, in Acosta v. State, 77 Tex.Crim. 643, 179 S.W. 870 (1915), the Court of Criminal Appeals stated, "Appellant contends that a razor is not per se a deadly weapon. We are inclined to ......