McDonald v. State
Decision Date | 31 January 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 20806.,20806. |
Citation | 137 S.W.2d 1046 |
Parties | McDONALD v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Gregg County Court; Merritt H. Gibson, Judge.
W. L. McDonald was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
Judgment reversed.
Oscar B. Jones and J. H. Broadhurst, both of Longview, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The conviction is for an aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $100.
The prosecution proceeded under Art. 1149, P.C., which reads as follows: "If any driver or operator of a motor vehicle or motorcycle upon the public highways of this State shall wilfully, or with negligence, as is defined in this title in the chapter on negligent homicide, collide with or cause injury less than death to any other person upon such highway, he shall be held guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished accordingly unless such injuries result in death, in which event he shall be dealt with under the general law of homicide."
The charging part of the complaint and information at the time such pleadings were filed was as follows: That W. L. McDonald "did then and there drive an automobile upon a public highway of this state, to-wit, highway 80 and did then and there commit an aggravated assault in and upon the person of Mrs. B. D. Jackson by then and there wilfully and with gross negligence colliding with and causing injury to the person of the said Mrs. B. D. Jackson, who was then and there upon said highway." (Italics ours.)
As shown in bill of exception No. 1, prior to announcing ready for trial, counsel for the state requested and was granted the permission of the court to amend the complaint and information by striking out the word "gross" before the word "negligence" in the body of the complaint and information. The amendment was made over appellant's objection, and the question is properly presented to this court for review.
In the Revised Penal Code of 1925, Art. 1149, the word "gross" before the word "negligence" was omitted. Apparently, in taking the complaint herein, the counsel for the state failed to note the change in the statute. In Carlton v. State, 120 Tex.Cr. R. 12, 48 S.W.2d 273, this court called attention to the fact that the complaint in that case alleged gross negligence. Upon reversing the case upon another ground the court held that if the state relied upon negligence it would be incumbent upon the trial court to define gross negligence in the charge, inasmuch as gross negligence had been alleged in the complaint. We think it is clear that the trial court permitted counsel for the state to alter a matter of substance in the complaint. Art. 533, C.C.P., reads as follows:
In Patillo v. State, 3 Tex.App. 442, this court used language as follows: The holding in the Patillo case was followed in Phariss v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 126 S.W.2d 981. Giving application to the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brasfield v. State
...of prior conviction alleged for enhancement); Jeters v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 379, 82 S.W.2d 150 (date of offense); McDonald v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 610, 137 S.W.2d 1046 (striking "gross" from "gross negligence"); Balbuena v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 227, 262 S.W.2d 727 (changing "whiskey" to "b......
-
Burrell v. State
...from that actually preferred by the grand jury, and which would constitute it no indictment at all. . . .' In McDonald v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 610, 137 S.W.2d 1046 (1940), a conviction was reversed because the State was allowed to amend the information in an aggravated assault with a motor ......
-
State v. Grant
...offense charged constitutes matter of substance. State v. McGraw, 1955, 140 W.Va. 547, 85 S.E.2d 849. See also, McDonald v. State, 1940, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 610, 137 S.W.2d 1046. In Beale's Criminal Pleadings & Practice, § 112, the author says: 'Whether an unnecessary allegation may be rejected a......
-
Stockton v. State
...v. State, 711 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); Burrell v. State, 526 S.W.2d 799, 804 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); McDonald v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 610, 137 S.W.2d 1046 (Tex.Cr.App.1940). Second, where two or more ways of committing the charged offense are alleged conjunctively in the same count, th......