Henry v. State
Decision Date | 30 January 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 25679,25679 |
Citation | 157 Tex.Crim. 88,246 S.W.2d 891 |
Parties | HENRY v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
G. F. Steger, Columbus, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
Assault with intent to murder is the offense; the punishment, eight years in the penitentiary.
According to the state's testimony, the injured party, Smith, was seated in the balcony of a motion picture theatre.A girl friend of both appellant and Smith came into the balcony and took a seat next to Smith.About five minutes thereafter, appellant came into the balcony and asked the girl to go downstairs with him.She replied that she was not ready to go.Whereupon, appellant left the balcony and in a short time returned and said to the girl he'was ready to go.'Again she refused to go with him.As to what then happened, we quote from the direct examination of the injured party as follows:
Two wounds were inflicted upon the injured party: The one on the left shoulder was superficial; the other was a stab wound below the neck and 'right over the spine' about the seventh vertebra and three or three and a half inches deep, partially severing the spinal cord.As a result of this wound the injured party was hospitalized for about three months and at the time of the trial remained partially paralyzed.The wounds were inflicted with a two-bladed pocket knife, one blade measuring three inches and the other, three and a quarter inches in length.The record does not reflect which blade was used in inflicting the injuries.
It was the theory of the state that the assault was prompted because the girl friend had broken a date with appellant.
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, presented the defense of a lack of intent to kill and of self-defense based upon the apparent attack as also antecedent threats of the injured party.It is appellant's contention that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction in that no specific intent to kill or malice aforethought is shown.Appellant correctly argues that inasmuch as the instrument here used was not a deadly weapon per se, no presumption of an intent to kill arises and that under such circumstances such an intent became a fact question.
But the fact that the injury inflicted was with an instrument not per se a deadly weapon does not necessarily reflect the absence of an intent to kill.
In Ammann v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 34, 165 S.W.2d 744, 745, we had occasion to state the rule controlling the sufficiency of the evidence to show an intent to kill.We there said: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Williams v. State, 42390
...421 S.W.2d 918; Daniels v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 215 S.W.2d 624; King v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 422, 220 S.W.2d 647; Henry v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 246 S.W.2d 891; Windham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 620, 288 S.W.2d I fail to find the evidence sufficient to support the judgment of the trial cour......
-
Blount v. State
...by Judge Davidson. The recitation of the facts as stated by him make the evidence sufficient. Judge Davidson cites Henry v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 246 S.W.2d 891, Hunter v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 325, 275 S.W.2d 803 and Windham v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 620, 288 S.W.2d 90, in his opinion in F......
-
Windham v. State
...Sec. 1636; Ammann v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 134, 165 S.W.2d 744; Daugherty v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 8, 216 S.W.2d 222; and Henry v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 246 S.W.2d 891. We think the evidence is sufficient to show an intent to kill. Dr. Turnbull's testimony shows that the injury inflicted w......
-
Davis v. State, 29092
...803. Where the weapon used is not of itself deadly the intent to kill may be ascertained from surrounding circumstances. Henry v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 246 S.W.2d 891 and Windham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 288 S.W.2d 90. The court's instruction requiring the jury to find that appellant not o......