Bowman v. State, 47514
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47514,47514 |
| Citation | 504 S.W.2d 880 |
| Parties | Olden Ben BOWMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. John Allison, Jr., Dallas (On appeal only), for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., William L. Hubbard, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Buddy Stevens, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
CORNELIUS, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder with malice, and was assessed punishment at 25 years' confinement.
The State's evidence showed that on November 4, 1972, appellant and a female companion went into the drug store owned by the victim, James G. Wadley. While the companion diverted the attention of a clerk, appellant took some money from the cash register. Mr. Wadley saw appellant take the money and after calling for him to stop, grabbed him and attempted to restrain him from leaving the store. While appellant was trying to escape from Wadley's grasp, he stabbed Wadley several times, inflicting wounds which required surgery and the removal of his spleen. Appellant offered no evidence.
In his first ground of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested charge on aggravated assault. The trial court charged the jury on assault with intent to murder with malice, assault with intent to murder without malice, and aggravated assault. It charged the jury that they must find a specific intent to kill in order to find appellant guilty of assault with intent to murder, and that if they failed to find such specific intent, or if they had a reasonable doubt thereof, they must acquit appellant of that offense and then should consider whether he was guilty of aggravated assault. The terms 'assault and battery', 'assault', and 'coupled with an ability to commit a battery' were all defined. In addition, the jury was instructed that an assault becomes aggravated when serious bodily injury is inflicted.
The charge of the court properly stated the law and applied the law to the facts in issue. It was not substantially different from that requested by the appellant, except ithat only his requested charge defined the term 'serious bodily injury.' Since there was no question or issue raised in this case as to the serious nature of the victim's injuries, it was not necessary to define that term in the charge. It is only when the character of the injury is made an issue that the trial court should define 'serious bodily injury.' Hays v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 480 S.W.2d 635. Ground of error No. 1 is overruled.
In ground No. 2 the appellant contends that the trial court should have submitted his specially requested charge on self-defense. We overrule this contention. There was no evidence raising the issue of self-defense. Appellant asserts that his voluntary written statement which was introduced in evidence raised the issue of self-defense because it contained his statement that '. . . I was trying to cut him so he would let me go . . .' but that statement did not raise the issue of self-defense. It merely showed, as did the other evidence, that appellant was trying to escape from the grasp of Wadley and not that he was resisting an attack upon him. Ground No. 2 is therefore overruled.
Appellant next urges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court should have sustained his motion for an instructed verdict. The basis of this argument is that appellant's statement in his voluntary confession that '. . . I was trying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carsner v. State
...giving of a self-defense instruction, the trial court does not err by refusing to provide one in the jury charge. Bowman v. State, 504 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); see also Lay, 359 S.W.3d at 297-98 (trial court did not err in refusing to give self-defense instruction, where the ......
-
Andrews v. State
...concerning the nature of the victim's injuries. Porter, Id.; Hays v. State, 480 S.W.2d 635, 636 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Bowman v. State, 504 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). However, more often than not, it was held not to be error not to define the term, "serious bodily injury," because "The ......
-
Mitchell v. State
...he was testifying to what he Transmitted on the radio. Sowers v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 456, 272 S.W.2d 119 (1954); Bowman v. State, 504 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Mejia v. State, 505 S.W.2d 532 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), and Cozby v. State, 506 S.W.2d 589 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) are thus inapplicable. ......
-
Peterson v. State, 49657.
...of the term is sufficient unless a specific requirement in the statutory definition is alleged to be unsatisfied. See, Bowman v. State, 504 S.W.2d 880 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); State v. Perry, 5 Ariz.App. 315, 426 P.2d 415 (1967). See, also, Andrason v. Sheriff, Washoe County, 88 Nev. 589, 503 P.2......