Crass v. State

• Citation: 20 S.W. 579
• Parties: CRASS v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 30 November 1892
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

20 S.W. 579

CRASS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 30, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Bell county; W. A. BLACKBURN, Judge.

Alf Crass was convicted of an assault with intent to murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

R. L. Henry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to murder one Walden, alleged to have been committed in March, 1891. In the summer of 1891 he had been convicted of a similar assault upon the same party, which had occurred in December, 1890. Over appellant's objection the prosecution was permitted to prove on the trial of this cause the prior assault and former conviction. In this case the state relied on circumstantial evidence. The evidence objected to was admitted to prove motive and ill will. Where a crime has been committed, and the circumstances point to the party on trial charged with such crime, any fact tending to show him to be the perpetrator of the offense is admissible to prove motive, even though such fact or circumstance be remote; and it is competent to prove acts of the accused occurring prior to the assault under investigation when the acts themselves, taken in connection with other facts or circumstances, prove or tend to show the animus of the accused towards the assaulted party. Willson, Crim. St. §§ 1043, 1044. Appellant, at the date of the assault charged in this case, was under indictment for the former assault upon Walden, alleged to have been committed the previous December, which indictment was presented in court on February 19, 1891, less than one one month prior to the assault charged in this case; and Walden was the principal witness for the state in that case. It was clearly permissible for the prosecution to prove the former assault, as well as the indictment predicated thereon. Dubose v. State, 13 Tex. App. 418; Taylor v. State, 14 Tex. App. 340; Powell v. State, 13 Tex. App. 244; Robinson v. State, 16 Tex. App. 347; Kunde v. State, 22 Tex. App. 65, 3 S. W. Rep. 325; Rucker v. State, 7 Tex. App. 549; Howard v. State, 25 Tex. App. 686, 8 S. W. Rep. 929; Anderson v. State, 15 Tex. App. 447; Johnson v. State, 29 Tex. App. 150, 15 S. W. Rep. 647; Brunet v. State, 12 Tex. App. 521; Blackwell v. State, 29 Tex. App. 195, 15 S. W. Rep. 597; Carr v. State, 41 Tex. 543. The record of appellant's conviction in the former case was also offered in evidence by the state, and objected to by appellant. The objections being overruled, appellant's counsel stated to the court that, if the record was admissible, the state could prove the conviction without the necessity of reading the record to the jury, reserving his objections to the evidence because it was, in any form, inadmissible. That this testimony was admissible as tending to prove motive is, we think, hardly an open question in this state. Johnson v. State, 29 Tex. App. 150, 15 S. W. Rep. 647; Brunet v. State, 12 Tex. App. 521. See, also, Whart. Crim. Ev. § 602a. "A prior judgment may also be admissible as part of the evidence on which the case for or against the appellant may be made out. * * * It may be relevant, also, to prove a former offense committed by the defendant as part of the system of crime of which the offense under trial is another part. If so, it is admissible to put in evidence the defendant's conviction of the former offense. * * * And a...