Mansfield v. State

Citation63 S.W. 630
PartiesMANSFIELD v. STATE.
Decision Date05 June 1901
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from Medina county court; H. E. Haass, Judge.

T. J. Mansfield was convicted of making an aggravated assault, and he appeals. Reversed.

V. H. Blocker and Ed De Montel, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25. The information charges defendant with an aggravated assault,—that by cutting with a knife he inflicted serious bodily injury upon Fritz J. Leinweber. The court's charge authorized the jury to convict (1) if serious bodily injury was inflicted; (2) if the assault was made with deadly weapons under circumstances not amounting to an intent to murder or maim; (3) if committed with premeditated design, and by the use of means calculated to inflict great bodily injury; (4) if defendant used more force in resisting an assault made upon him than was necessary. These matters were promptly and properly excepted to during the trial, were presented to the trial court on motion for new trial, and are here assigned as error. It has been always held to be erroneous for the court to submit as a basis for conviction a ground of aggravation not set out in the information or indictment. For authorities, see White's Ann. Pen. Code, § 1023; Herald v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. App. 409, 35 S. W. 670; Jones v. State, 62 S. W. 758, 2 Tex. Ct. Rep. 485. The ground of aggravation set out in the information was the infliction of serious bodily injury by cutting with a knife. The state must base the conviction alone upon this charge. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 8, 1936
    ......Co. v. Ferebee, 238 U.S. 269, 59 L.Ed. 1030; Railway Co. v. Moquin, 283 U.S. 520, 75 L.Ed. 1243; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. State, 65. So. 881; Bales v. Strickland, 139 Miss. 636, 103 So. 432; Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 76 So. 267;. Haines v. Haines, 98 Miss. ......
  • Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Aultman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 8, 1935
    ...... . . Green. v. Weller, 32 Miss. 650; Koch v. Bridges, 45 Miss. 247; Yerger v. State, 91 Miss. 802, 45 So. 849;. Hamner v. Yazoo Delta Lbr. Co., 100 Miss. 349, 56. So. 466; State v. Traylor, 100 Miss. 544, 56 So. 521; ......
  • Padfield v. McIntosh, 15501
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • April 2, 1954
    ......3967 styled Dean Padfield v. Vada McIntosh, in the State of Colorado, County of Chaffee, ordering the respondent to pay the sum of $100.00 each month for the support and maintenance of the minor child, * * ......
  • Starr County v. Laughlin, 12973
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
    • October 26, 1955
    ...... conviction in a contempt proceeding in the trial court in a civil case is an original proceeding by habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of this State. In Tims v. Tims, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 995, the Court said:. 'It has been the will settled law of this State since the decision by the Supreme ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT