Hall v. State, 40594
| Decision Date | 04 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40594,40594 |
| Citation | 418 S.W.2d 810 |
| Parties | Garfield HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
B. F. Patterson, San Antonio, for appellant.
E. W. Patterson, Gonzales, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is Assault with Intent to Murder with Malice aforethought; the punishment, two (2) years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
At the outset, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction in view of what he contends is the absence of a showing of a specific intent to kill and physical injury to the person upon whom the assault was made.
The State's evidence reveals that on December 15, 1966, Hugh F. Hartman, a Texas Highway Patrolman, was on patrol in Gonzales County. At approximately 9:45 p.m., he observed an Oldsmobile automobile parked off U.S. Highway 90-A, five and one half miles west of the City of Gonzales. Upon stopping to inquire if the occupants were having engine trouble which the driver and the passengers, including appellant, disclaimed, Hartman concluded the occupants had been drinking and had stopped to relieve themselves. As the Oldsmobile pulled onto the highway, Hartman followed in his patrol car and observed the Oldsmobile being driven erratically from one side of the highway to the other. Hartman immediately stopped the Oldsmobile by which time it was raining 'heavily.' While Hartman was attempting to talk to the driver, apellant, who had gotten out of the car, constantly interrupted the conversation, refused the officer's instructions to get back in the car, and appeared to Hartman to be intoxicated. When Officer Hartman attempted to place handcuffs on the appellant, he twisted away and began to shove and push Hartman up against a nearby barbed wire fence where he began choking Hartman. Upon finally freeing himself, Hartman pulled his pistol and ordered appellant to take a prone position on the ground.
At appellant's request, he was allowed to get into the patrol car, but when he again refused to be handcuffed, the officer ordered appellant out of the car and the struggle resumed. When attacked again, Officer Hartman once more pulled his pistol, but either tripped or slipped on the mud into the nearby ditch and dropped his pistol. Thereupon, the appellant and Officer Hartman both grabbed for the weapon and struggled over its possession with appellant attempting to force the gun to the officer's head. While kicking free of the appellant, the officer lost his grip on the pistol. Appellant then ordered the officer to back away from him and when Hartman was eight to ten feet away, the appellant fired the pistol at the officer, but did not hit him. When Hartman sought to secure another weapon from his patrol unit, the appellant ordered and forced the officer at gun point across the ditch and over the fence. When Hartman refused to go into the brush, appellant fired at him again from a point approximately twenty-five feet away.
At this time, appellant returned to the patrol unit and began blowing the unit's siren. Officer Hartman made his way back to the highway where he flagged down two automobiles whose drivers he sent for help. Upon seeing the Oldsmobile move off and determining that the appellant had left the patrol unit, Officer Hartman returned to the patrol car, where he found his pistol, and began immediate pursuit.
As a result of the heavy rain, Hartman was unable to find the Oldsmobile and subsequently had a wreck and was injured.
The next morning at 7 a.m. the Sheriff of Gonzales County arrested the appellant following his discovery of the Oldsmobile in a ditch approximately a half mile from the scene of the events of the night before.
Appellant did not testify, but offered a witness in support of his application for probation.
It is well established that a specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhymes v. State
...to kill, such as the use of a deadly weapon." Brown v. State , 122 S.W.3d 794, 800 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (citing Hall v. State , 418 S.W.2d 810, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) ).B. Summary of the EvidenceIn the State's case-in-chief, Sanford provided many of the details surrounding the kidnapp......
-
Godsey v. State
...one, or was not used in a deadly manner, the evidence must be established by other facts." See also Flanagan, supra; Hall v. State, 418 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Kincaid v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 198 S.W.2d 899 (1947). The facts of the instant case show exhibition rather than use of a......
-
Thompson v. State
...may be presumed from the use of a weapon deadly per se. See Watts v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 207 S.W.2d 94 (1947); Hall v. State, 418 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). This presumption is rebuttable; it may be refuted by other evidence. If there is testimony from Any source raising the issue ......
-
Cherry v. State
...murder may be shown by the use of a deadly weapon per se. Stallings v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 679 (1--11--72); Hall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 418 S.W.2d 810. A pistol is a deadly weapon per se, and the shooting of deceased at close range with such a weapon authorized a finding of malic......