Crowley v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 22544.,22544. |
| Parties | CROWLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; B. H. Atchison, Judge.
L. M. Crowley was convicted of offense of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
L. H. Welch, of Breckenridge, for appellant.
Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Appellant was indicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder with malice. Upon his trial he was convicted of the offense of aggravated assault and his punishment assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of one month and a fine of $500, from which judgment he has appealed to this court.
Briefly stated, the evidence adduced by the State shows that in the year 1911, the Texas Company acquired an oil, gas and mineral lease from J. W. Crowley and wife on approximately 313 acres of land located in Stephens County; that the company had drilled several wells on this land which produced oil; that in the year 1924, the Texas Company sold, and assigned said lease and transferred the same, together with the producing oil wells thereon, to McNallen & Griffin, a copartnership composed of A. J. McNallen and J. S. Griffin, who then operated the same; that thereafter the appellant acquired the surface of said tract of land and owned it at the time of the alleged assault. McNallen and Griffin had in their employ Gerald McNallen, who operated the wells and looked after the pumps, etc. On the day in question, while Gerald McNallen was engaged in the performance of his duty, appellant came there in his automobile in which he had a .22 caliber automatic rifle. He accused McNallen of having turned the salt water from the wells upon his land; that he had been doing so for a long time, whereupon McNallen called him a liar. Appellant then ran his hand into his pocket and McNallen was not slow in getting some distance between himself and the appellant; that when he (appellant) saw that McNallen was rapidly getting away, he went back to his car, got his rifle and shot three or more shots at him. By that time McNallen had reached a point approximately 100 yards or more away. None of the bullets took effect. However, each bullet came so near to McNallen that he heard it whistle and strike the sprigs and limbs of trees as it passed him.
Appellant's version of the affair, as testified to by him, is substantially as follows: When he accused Gerald McNallen of running salt water on his land, McNallen called him a God damn liar; that he told McNallen he could not take that; that when this remark was made, McNallen drew his knife, whereupon he (appellant) also got his knife out of his pocket; that it was then that McNallen ran to a clump of bushes, broke off a limb and started back towards him, whereupon he went to his car, got his rifle and shot several times towards McNallen as he was running towards Rig No. 2, where he knew that McNallen had been keeping a gun; that he shot to warn him to keep from getting it; that he did not shoot at him to kill him but to keep him from going to that rig. In rebuttal, the State proved that Gerald McNallen did not have a knife at the time in question.
J. J. Russell testified that after the trouble he met the appellant who told him that he shot at Gerald McNallen about five times; that he was shooting to hit him.
There was also proof that a .22 caliber automatic rifle, such as the one the defendant used, was dangerous at a distance of one mile. There is not any evidence that the assaulted party was beyond the carrying range of the rifle.
Appellant addressed a number of objections to the court's charge and followed each with an extended argument. Nearly all of the objections relate to the court's charge on the law of an assault with intent to murder with and without malice, but since the jury found appellant guilty of an aggravated assault, all objections relating to the court's charge pertaining to the law of an assault to murder passed out of the case and need not be discussed. However, the objection relating to the court's failure to charge on the law of simple assault and his failure to make proper application thereof to the facts of the case presents a question which requires our attention inasmuch as we think that the issue was raised by appellant's testimony. He testified that he did not intend to hit the alleged assaulted party; that if he had, he could have killed him as he was not over 100 yards away; that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, 39115
...330 S.W.2d 438; Brown v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 233, 233 S.W.2d 578; Chandler v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 41, 229 S.W.2d 71; Crowley v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 174 S.W.2d 321; Rodriguez v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 206, 172 S.W.2d 502; Barnes v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 167 S.W.2d 197; Johnson v. S......
-
Diogu v. State, No. 14-02-01068-CR (TX 8/10/2004)
...if he only intended to scare and not injure Sydenstricker, even if using a deadly weapon to do so. See, e.g., Crowley v. State, 146 Tex. Crim. 269, 271, 174 S.W.2d 321, 322 (1943). The Penal Code has been amended several times since then, and under the current version, threatening another w......
-
Smith v. State
...a charge. The fact that the jury found appellant guilty of misdemeanor theft passes this question out of the case. Crowley v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 174 S.W.2d 321. Bill of exception No. 3 complains of the trial court's failure to charge on theft under $5.00. We do not feel that the fact......
-
Zamora v. State
...for failure to submit the issue of simple assault and cites Roddy v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 496, 126 S.W.2d 669, and Crowley v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 269, 174 S.W.2d 321. In the Crowley case art. 1141, P.C., Sec. 3 was quoted, and it was held that one who unlawfully shoots a gun with intent to......