Childress v. State

• Decision Date: 13 April 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 10834.)
• Parties: CHILDRESS v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

294 S.W. 586

CHILDRESS v. STATE.

(No. 10834.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1927.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1927.

Commissioners' Decision.

Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.

Douglas Childress was convicted of assault with a prohibited weapon, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Warren W. Moore and Shelton & Shelton, all of Austin, for appellant.

Sam D. Stinson, State's Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State's Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

BETHEA, J.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of assault with a prohibited weapon, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the state penitentiary.

The record contains no bills of exception. There is but one special charge requested by appellant, and it was refused by the trial court. The refusal of said special charge was not excepted to and for this reason is not entitled to consideration by this court.

We have examined the learned trial judge's charge and find that the same amply and correctly presented the law applicable to this case and is not subject to the objections and exceptions made to same. The indictment sufficiently charges the offense, and the evidence abundantly supports the verdict. Finding no errors in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Daughdrill parked his automobile on the public street in the city of Austin and went away for a short time to transact some business. As he was returning to the car he noticed appellant apparently searching it. Upon being asked to explain his conduct he said some one had told him there was whisky in the car and that he was looking for it. Daughdrill charged him with stealing things from the car and took hold of his arm and insisted that appellant go with him. Appellant took some socks, handkerchiefs, and other things from his pocket, placed them on the seat and importuned Daughdrill to let him go. These articles had been taken from a grip which was in the car. Appellant had also taken Daughdrill's pistol out of the grip, and had it in his possession at the time, which fact was then unknown to Daughdrill. When the latter refused to pass the matter up, and insisted that appellant go with him, appellant broke loose, cursed him, drew and presented the pistol, and temporarily made his escape, taking the pistol with him. The court charged the jury that "any person having reasonable grounds to believe that property is stolen may arrest the offender and seize the property whether he is an officer or...