Gruesendorf v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1900 |
| Citation | 56 S.W. 624 |
| Parties | GRUESENDORF v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Falls county court; W. E. Hunnicutt, Judge.
Charles Gruesendorf was convicted of an aggravated assault, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25. Complaint is made in the first bill of exception that when this case was called for trial, and the list of jurors handed appellant, six of the twelve regular jurors, but a few hours before this trial, had sat in the trial of the state against Will Burns, charged with using abusive language towards Charles Gruesendorf, growing out of the same transaction; and defendant protested against being tried by said jurors, and demanded that he be not compelled to select from said list a jury to try this cause, but that other jurors be selected. This request was refused by the court. The court, in his explanation to the bill, states that: There certainly was no error in the action of the court, it appearing that the jurors objected to by appellant had tried a different party for a different offense, which had no connection whatever with the offense for which appellant was being tried. The mere fact that the offense was committed immediately after the offense in this case does not authorize appellant to excuse jurors for said cause.
Appellant asked the court to charge the jury as follows: "Defendant, if he heard the prosecuting witness cursing him, and using abusive and insulting language of and concerning defendant,—if the prosecuting witness was cursing said defendant, and was abusing or using abusive language and insulting language to and concerning defendant,— defendant would have the right to demand of said prosecuting witness that he desist from said abuse, and, if defendant reasonably expected, either from the words or manner of said witness, an attack from him, the said witness, then he, said defendant, would have the right to arm himself, in order to defend himself against such expected attack." The court did not err in refusing this charge, since same was not applicable to the facts of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asher v. State
...Tex. App. 606; Irvine v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 116 S. W. 591; Holmes v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 354, 106 S. W. 1160; Gruesendorf v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S. W. 624; and other cases listed by Mr. Branch in his Ann. Tex. P. C. § 558, subd. 2. And even jurors who convicted the accused up......
-
Hepworth v. State
...v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 310, 277 S. W. 669. Analogous cases are Irvins v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 116 S. W. 591; Gruesendorf v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 56 S. W. 624. In Cyc. of Law & Proc. vol. 24, p. 279, the following statement is found: "A juror is not incompetent because he has been ......
-
United States v. 662.44 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS
...held properly overruled, where each juror answered that he had not formed any opinion as to the guilt of the defendant. Gruesendorf v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 56 S.W. 624. Whether a jury has an opinion is for the trial court to determine. Williams v. Supreme Court of Honor, 221 Ill. 152, 77 N.E......
-
Kosmoroski v. State
...Cr. R. 8, 57 S. W. 97; Williams v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 396, 110 S. W. 63; Tracey v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 494, 61 S. W. 127; Gruesendorf v. State, 56 S. W. 624. Bill of exceptions No. 2 complains that the court should not have submitted to the jury a charge to the effect that if one who i......