Crisp v. State, 16544.

Decision Date21 March 1934
Docket NumberNo. 16544.,16544.
PartiesCRISP v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Limestone County; H. F. Kirby, Judge.

Eugene Crisp was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

L. W. Shepperd, of Groesbeck, and E. G. Aycock, of Austin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Under an indictment charging him with assault with intent to murder R. L. Smith, appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25 and confinement in jail for three months.

Monroe Crisp, brother of appellant, was standing on the street talking to Will Morgan when R. L. Smith walked by. Following Smith, Monroe Crisp attacked him with a knife, and inflicted several severe wounds upon him. During the difficulty a pistol, which had been in the possession of Smith, fell to the sidewalk. As appellant reached the scene Smith called to bystanders to pull Monroe Crisp off of him. Appellant was not present when the difficulty began, but was across the street. Upon seeing the fight, he ran across the street with a hammer in his hand. It appears that one Briggs made a movement indicating that he was going to separate Smith and Monroe Crisp. Appellant being near him with the hammer raised, said: "Stand back." Until the parties were finally separated appellant stood near them with the hammer raised.

The court gave an abstract charge on the law of principals, but made no application thereof to the facts. The only instruction submitting the law of aggravated assault was as follows:

"If you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant * * * with a deadly weapon did unlawfully assault the said R. L. Smith, but not with the intent to murder, then you will find the defendant guilty of an aggravated assault, and assess his punishment at a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in jail not less than one month nor more than two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, as you may determine and state in your verdict."

Appellant made no attack on R. L. Smith with a knife. When he arrived at the scene of the difficulty, his brother, Monroe Crisp, was attacking Smith. Appellant's only participation in the difficulty was to raise a hammer and say, "Stand back." This being true, the testimony makes inapplicable the charge above...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 26, 1991
    ...222, 268 S.W.2d 467, 469 (1954) (Opinion on rehearing); Barnes v. State, 145 Tex.Crim. 163, 166 S.W.2d 708 (1942); Crisp v. State, 125 Tex.Crim. 603, 69 S.W.2d 772 (1934). See also, Apodaca v. State, 589 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Harris v. State, 522 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1975......
  • Romo v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 18, 1977
    ...v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 222, 268 S.W.2d 467 (1954); Barnes v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 131, 166 S.W.2d 708 (1942); Crisp v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 603, 69 S.W.2d 772 (1934); McCuin v. State, 505 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Savant v. State, 544 S.W.2d 408 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). In Barnes v. State, s......
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 18, 1991
    ...160 Tex.Cr.R. 222, 268 S.W.2d 467, at 470 (1954); Barnes v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 131, 166 S.W.2d 708, at 710 (1942); Crisp v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 603, 69 S.W.2d 772 (1934); Gentry v. State, 24 Tex.App. 478, 6 S.W. 321 (1887), and cases cited therein; Howell v. State, 661 S.W.2d 293, at 294......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 7, 1987
    ...v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 222, 268 S.W.2d 467 (1954); Barnes v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 131, 166 S.W.2d 708 (1942); Crisp v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 603, 69 S.W.2d 772 (1934). The demarcation between these two lines of cases was sufficiently fuzzy that the Court undertook to clarify it in McCuin v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT