Griffin v. State

• Decision Date: 01 January 1869
• Citation: Griffin v. State, 32 Tex. 164 (Tex. 1869)
• Parties: JOHN L. GRIFFIN v. THE STATE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

32 Tex. 164

JOHN L. GRIFFIN

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1869.

1.In a trial for an aggravated assault the court instructed the jury that “the defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established to your satisfaction.”Held, that the instruction was correct, and did not warrant a conviction on less proof than required by law.

2.When, by virtue of article 648 of the code of criminal procedure(Pas. Dig. art. 3113), a husband is examined as a witness in behalf of his wife, or a wife in behalf of her husband, the witness is not subject to be cross-examined.

APPEAL from Panola.Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Williamson.

The appellant was indicted and convicted of an aggravated assault on one Tabitha Leslie, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at a fine of two hundred dollars.The opinion indicates all the facts necessary.

Donley, for the appellant.

Attorney General, for the state.

LINDSAY, J.

We can discover no error in this case which demands a reversal.There is no defect in the indictment.But there are two special errors assigned as reasons why the court should have sustained the motion of defendant for a new trial in the court below.First, that the court erred in the instructions given to the jury, and in refusing those asked by the defendant.And second, that the court erred in not arresting the argument of the attorney for the state, in his comments upon the comparative value of the testimony of the two only witnesses examined upon the trial--one for the prosecution, and the other for the defense.

The charge of the court embraced the law, as applicable to the facts proved.The testimony of the two witnesses was conflicting, and the court very properly referred the settlement of that conflict to the jury, who were the exclusive judges of their credibility, and who had the right to believe the one and wholly disregard the other.This was the especial province of the jury.The design of all testimony, introduced before a jury, is to satisfy their minds of the truth or falsehood of the given proposition.Therefore, there can be no doubt in a case, if their minds are satisfied.A doubt ex vi termini implies that the mind is not satisfied.Hence, we can not admit that there is any force in the objection to that portion of the charge which instructed them, that “the defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established to their (your) satisfaction.”If satisfied,they can have no doubt; and that is the full import of the law.

The exception to the argument of counsel is both novel and unique.It is an assignment of error for the revision of this court that is unprecedented.The argument of the counsel was neither the law nor the facts of the case, which are alone the special objects for the consideration of this court on appeal.If facts are improperly admitted, or the law wrongly...