Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | A-2141. |
| Citation | 154 P. 689,12 Okla.Crim. 255,1916 OK CR 16 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a prosecution for assault with intent to kill, it was not incumbent on the court to charge the law of assault with intent to do bodily harm, or assault and battery, when, under the evidence, the defendant was either entirely innocent of any offense whatever, or was guilty of an assault with intent to kill.
When the intent is the gist of the crime, the presumption that every sane man contemplates, and intends, the natural and probable consequences that necessarily result from his acts and conduct, though a very important circumstance in making the proof necessary, upon this point, is not conclusive, nor alone sufficient to convict, and should be supplemented by other evidence to avoid a reasonable doubt.
Where the evidence is conflicting, and that on the part of the state such that, if believed by the jury, a verdict of guilty should result, a conviction will not be set aside on the ground that it is not warranted by the evidence.
Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee County; Wade S. Standfield Judge.
Joe Jones was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and appeals. Affirmed.
Eaton & Cowley, of Okmulgee, and Crump & Crump, of Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.
Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error, Joe Jones, herein referred to as "defendant," was convicted at the district court of Okmulgee county during the June, 1913, term thereof, on a charge of assault with intent to kill, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for one year and one day.
It appears that defendant and the assaulted party, L. J. Pounds were farmers living in the neighborhood of the Salt Creek schoolhouse in Okmulgee county. The assaulted party was the constable of that township. On the 22d day of December, 1911 in the evening of that day, certain Christmas exercises were held at that schoolhouse for the benefit and amusement of the children of that neighborhood. The constable was requested to be present in order to preserve order, and he did attend. Defendant also attended, together with certain members of his family, among whom was his son, Ernest Jones. After the exercises had been going on for some time, Ernest Jones and the young man who was with him created a disturbance in the room, and the constable went to them and admonished them to be quiet. The disturbance subsided for a short time, but was afterwards renewed by the parties, and the constable went to them and started to put them out of the house. During his attempt to eject Ernest Jones from the room, Joe Jones, father of Ernest, assaulted Pounds.
The testimony on the part of the state tended to show that the constable had Ernest Jones with his arms around him and was at the rear of Ernest, pulling him out backwards; that he was making no effort to strike or in any way mistreat him; that defendant, Joe Jones, was in another part of the room and started to the place where the constable and Ernest were, pulling a knife out of his pocket as he went, and making certain threats against the constable. He rushed up to the scene of the assault, as the state's witnesses testified. He reached around his son and stabbed the constable in the back with a knife, the blade of which was three inches or more in length, inflicting a wound that penetrated into the lung, causing hemorrhage from the lung, and confining the constable to his bed for some period of time.
As a witness in his own behalf, the defendant denied that he stabbed the constable at all, and his witnesses testify that they did not see him stab him, nor did they see a knife in his hands at the time. The defendant admits that he went to the scene of the difficulty, but says that his only purpose was to separate his son from the constable and to restore order.
The constable, Pounds, died in the February following, but there is no evidence to show whether his death was the result of the wound inflicted on this occasion. Prior to his death however, a preliminary examination was held, and his testimony was reduced to writing. The physician who attended the...
To continue reading
Request your trial