Shields v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1898 |
| Citation | 44 S.W. 844 |
| Parties | SHIELDS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Parker county; J. S. Straughan, Judge.
Mart Shields, convicted of an aggravated assault, appeals. Reversed.
Albert Stevenson, for appellant. Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault, and fined $200; hence this appeal. Motion was made to strike out the statement of facts; but the affidavit of appellant shows the use of due diligence to have the same filed within 10 days after the adjournment of court, and we consider the same.
There are but two questions necessary to be considered. The testimony on the part of the state tended to show that the prosecutrix was riding out of the town of Mineral Wells towards her home, when appellant, also riding horseback, overtook her. The parties rode together some distance, when appellant made an indecent proposition to prosecutrix, and, according to her testimony, followed it up by catching hold of her arm. She repelled the assault. Subsequently he offered her money not to tell on him. His testimony in the main accords with the testimony of prosecutrix, except as to catching hold of her arm. This he denies, and denies that he made any demonstration towards her. He admits, however, that he proposed to her to have carnal intercourse with her, and that she became indignant. He also introduced testimony tending to show that she was an unchaste woman, and that he had reason to believe that she would permit him to copulate with her, or, at least, would not become offended at his proposition in that regard. On this state of case, appellant asked the following charge: "If the defendant took hold of the arm of the said Tex Lynn, but did so with no intent to injure her or her feelings, and had probable ground to believe, and did believe, that such taking hold of her arm would not be objected to by her, the said Tex Lynn, or would not be offensive to her or her feelings, then he would not be guilty of any offense, and you will acquit the defendant." This charge was refused by the court. In the court's general charge there was nothing presenting this phase of the case. We think that the testimony presented on this line by the appellant, if the jury believed the same to be true, tended to show a defense. In order to constitute an assault or an assault and battery, there must be an intent to injure by the means used. Now, in this case there was no physical injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. King
...(Tex. Cr. App.) 40 S.W. 801; Penny v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S.W. 297; Oliver v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 42 S.W. 554; Shields v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 13, 44 S.W. 844. The Mississippi court has most particularly held that it error to single out, or designate, the defendant, as a witness in ......
-
Stoker v. State
...to comply with it. Hand v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 431, 227 S. W. 194; Price v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 534, 236 S. W. 723; Shields v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 14, 44 S. W. 844. After the complaint, a warrant issued for the arrest of the appellant and placed in the hands of an officer. The officer......
-
Montgomery v. State
...cross-examination in a manner which might have led the jury to conclude that she yielded on the promise of reward. In Shields v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 13, 44 S. W. 844, offense was an aggravated assault based upon indecent familiarity with the prosecutrix. Appellant testified that the condu......
-
Slaughter v. State
...of the jury." As further authority, appellant cites Daggett v. State, 39 Tex. Crim. 5, 44 S.W. 842 (1898); and Shields v. State, 39 Tex.Crim. 13, 44 S.W. 844 (1898). The State's brief responds that both Daggett and Shields are founded upon the earlier case of Harrell v. State, 37 Tex. Crim.......