Honey v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 18434.,18434. |
| Parties | HONEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; D. W. Bartlett, Judge.
Cass Honey was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. A. Kibler, of Waco, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Assault with intent to murder is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.
The appellant and Alvin Smith were jointly charged, tried, and convicted of the offense mentioned and their punishment assessed as stated above. However, their appeals have been prosecuted separately.
The injured party, Vernon Smith, and the sister of the appellant were attempting to slip away from home to get married. They had made arrangements whereby they would go to town for that purpose. Smith had secured the aid and assistance of parties by the names of Roberts and Parker to accompany them. They drove near the home of the fiancé. She came out to the highway and attempted to get in the car and to place therein some personal effects. About this time the appellant and Alvin Smith (brother of the injured party and also brother-in-law of appellant) opened fire upon the car and its occupants. Some six shots were fired at and into the car. Appellant fired four of these shots. Some of the shots took effect by striking the car and the windshield, others hit the spokes of one of the wheels, and one shot punctured the tire of one of the back wheels, as a result of which the car stopped. A difficulty ensued in which the appellant and Alvin Smith made an atttack upon the parties in the car.
The conviction is for assault with intent to murder in the shooting at and into the car in which Vernon Smith was an occupant. It does not involve a prosecution for assault with intent to murder the other parties. The fact that the shots were fired at and into the car and without justification or excuse, was sufficient to meet the legal requirements of the law and to authorize a conviction. See Shoffitt v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 486, 82 S.W.(2d) 379; Catlett v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 169 S.W. 673.
It is the appellant's contention that he thought the men in the car were kidnapping his sister; that he had no intention of inflicting any injury whatsoever upon them; that he fired the shots for the purpose of stopping them from what appeared to him to be an effort to abduct his sister and to carry her away from home. The injured party and the sister did subsequently, on the same day, marry, and they were married at the time of the trial of the case.
Appellant filed an application for a suspended sentence. He testified in support thereof that he had never been convicted of a felony. He was asked if he knew his general reputation in the community where he lived for being a peaceable and lawabiding citizen. He replied that he did not. He admitted numerous specific acts of violence, a charge of aggravated assault and several fightings. He testified that he did not know how many times he had been charged in different courts, stating that he could not keep up with them. These specific acts of violence and misconduct on the part of the appellant were admitted without objection. Therefore the question as to the admissibility thereof is not before this court.
No exceptions or objections were reserved to the charge of the court. As stated above, it appears that the appellant and Alvin Smith were jointly tried. However, the statement of facts heretofore related is the State's case and the defensive theory offered by the appellant in the present instance. But the codefendant, Alvin Smith, also testified as a witness in the case.
In bill of exception No. 1 appellant complains that the jury were guilty of misconduct in that during their deliberation one of them used the following language: "You know the reputation of these men, and you can tell from the way they act they think that because they got out of other things they can get out of this."
There is nothing in the bill showing that appellant claimed that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godsey v. State
...Muro v. State, 387 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Streets v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 517, 188 S.W.2d 582 (1945); Honey v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 98, 102 S.W.2d 224 (1937); Hatton, supra. However, see also Thompson v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 36 S.W. 265 (1896) where the defendant "presented" a gu......
-
Boaz v. State, 21657.
...State's testimony amply authorized the jury's conclusion of guilt. Shoffitt v. State, 128 Tex. Cr.R. 486, 82 S.W.2d 379; Honey v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 98, 102 S.W.2d 224; Catlett v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 169 S.W. There appear in the record some special charges seeking to have certain argum......
-
Jennings v. State, 25542
...of law, intend to kill. This we are unwilling to hold. The facts abundantly support the jury's conclusion of guilt. Honey v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 98, 102 S.W.2d 224; Rios v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 326, 180 S.W.2d Several bills of exception appear in the transcript; notwithstanding appellant d......