Barnes v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 33879,33879 |
| Citation | 172 Tex.Crim. 303,356 S.W.2d 679 |
| Parties | Herbert(Cat) BARNES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles S. McMillian and J. L. Smith (appeal only), San Augustine, for appellant.
William E. Carroll, Dist. Atty., Jasper, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DICE, Commissioner.
The conviction is for assault with intent to murder; the punishment, 10 years confinement in the penitentiary.
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is challenged.
The evidence, viewed in its most favorable light to the State, reflects that on the night in question the injured party, Manse Mitchell, who was a night watchman for the City of San Augustine, went to a place in the City around 1 A.M., known as 'Lillie Bee's', to check on a disturbance. After he had gone inside and started to his automobile to leave, three 'boys' were standing outside of the place talking. One remarked, 'Wonder who in the hell he is looking for'; another said, 'I don't give a damn who he is looking for,' to which another replied, 'You better hush or he will hear you.' Thereupon the injured party walked to where the three were standing and said, 'Who is that doing that smart popping off here?' and appellant said, 'Ain't nobody doing no popping off.' The injured party then stated, 'Yes, somebody is trying to get smart sounds like to me * * * what is you name?' Appellant replied, 'I don't have to tell you my name,' to which the injured party responded, 'No, you don't have to, but I'm asking you what is your name.' Appellant replied, 'By God I told you I don't have to tell you my name.' Thereupon the injured party hit appellant with a blackjack and a scuffle ensued between them. In the scuffle appellant cut the injured party with a knife and during the encounter said, 'Do you want me to kill you?', to which the injured party replied, 'No, I don't want you to kill me * * * I am not ready to die,' to which appellant replied, 'Well, I'm a goddamn good notion to kill you.' The injured party reached for his gun, removed it from the holster and as he was getting in a position to shoot, someone hit his elbow and it dropped to the ground. Appellant put his foot on the gun and said, 'No you won't get that'; then picked up the gun and said, 'Do you want this?', to which the injured party replied, 'Yes, I want it.' Appellant said, Thereupon the injured party got in his car and as he drove away heard some shots, none of which hit him or the car.
From the scene the injured party drove to a hospital where he received first aid treatment by a nurse for the wounds which he received in the scuffle, but no doctor was called. The wounds consisted of several cuts on his body which he described as a cut in the eyebrow, the end of a finger cut off and two cut places in his back. The nurse who rendered first aid described the wounds on the injured party as two cuts in the back around the shoulders, two and three inches long, but not deep enough to require sutures and half of the fingernail and tip of the right forefinger cut off.
The injured party after leaving the hospital drove around the rest of the night looking for appellant. His gun was recovered later in the night at appellant's home. Appellant was arrested by the injured party the following morning and a pocket knife was taken from him which was introduced in evidence by the State.
Appellant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that before the difficulty he had his knife in his hand trimming a match; that when the injured party struck him, he grabbed the injured party and put his arms around him, but did not try to cut him. Appellant admitted that when the injured party left the scene he picked up the gun and fired it four times in the air, but stated that he did not intend to kill him.
Appellant insists that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because the proof does not show that he had the specific intent to kill the injured party.
In Ammann v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 34, 165 S.W.2d 744, 745, this Court in stating the rule controlling the sufficiency of the evidence to show an intent to kill said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...qualified as a deadly weapon under the law. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 477 S.W.2d 24, 25 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Barnes v. State, 172 Tex.Crim. 303, 356 S.W.2d 679 (1962); Gillingham v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 116, 318 S.W.2d 659 (1958); Eagle v. State, 135 Tex.Crim. 606, 122 S.W.2d 304 (1939)......
-
Flanagan v. State
...injury could have been inflicted and thus the shotgun was not in the manner of its use a deadly weapon. See also, Barnes v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 356 S.W.2d 679 (1961); and Hargrove v. State, 501 S.W.2d 878 Applying the above rules to the facts in the instant case, the panel opinion fou......
-
Lockett v. State, 05-92-00064-CR
...299 (Tex.Crim.App.1977) (victim stabbed in back, arm, and nose--insufficient to support finding of deadly weapon); Barnes v. State, 356 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.Crim.App.1961) (two cuts on back, one on eyebrow, and one on end of a finger were not sufficient to support deadly weapon finding).4 Cf. Ha......
-
Williams v. State, 42390
...34, 165 S.W.2d 744; Cheeks v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 184, 247 S.W.2d 893; Richard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 426 S.W.2d 951; Barnes v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 303, 356 S.W.2d 679 and Tex.Cr.App., 366 S.W.2d 586; Robertson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 426 S.W.2d 872; Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.......