Stanfield v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1875 |
| Citation | 43 Tex. 167 |
| Parties | THOMAS B. STANFIELD v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Guadalupe. Tried below before the Hon. James A. Ware.
John Ireland, for appellant.
George Clark, Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant, being an adult male, is convicted for an aggravated assault upon a child. The facts showed upon the trial that he was the guardian of the child.
The indictment, in anticipation that such would be the proof, perhaps charged the defendant with having beaten the child in a cruel, outrageous, and vicious manner, with intent to injure him.
It states no other specific ground of aggravated assault and battery, as mentioned in the code, (Paschal's Dig., art. 2150,) than that defendant was an adult male, and that the person beaten was a child.
The court in the charge to the jury submitted two other grounds, and also charged the jury that if defendant inflicted a castigation upon the person of his ward with an unusual instrument, and one that is calculated to inflict serious injuries to his person, they must find him guilty. This makes the instrument the test of unlawful correction.
The charge asked and given does not mend the matter, which was that the jury could not convict the defendant “unless the chastisement was done in a cruel or vindictive manner.” This made the unlawfulness of the correction depend upon the manner; from all which it is concluded that the jury was not properly instructed as to the law of the case.
The plain issues as presented by the pleading and evidence were: Was defendant an adult male and Thomas Albert Pettus a child? Did he strike him as charged as to time and place? Was the whipping inflicted upon the child for the purpose of correction by defendant as guardian of his ward? And was it moderate correction?
The evidence showing no controversy about the precedent issues, the main one was the one last presented, to to wit: “Was the correction moderate?” If it was, defendant was not guilty of an assault and battery at all. (Paschal's Dig., art. 2145.) If it was not moderate, but excessive, he was guilty as charged of an aggravated assault and battery by having exceeded the boundary of his legal right as guardian under the law, and placed himself in the attitude of a stranger and not a parent to the child.
It is true that the law has not laid down any fixed measure of moderation in the lawful correction of a child, nor is it practicable to do so. Whether it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenter v. Commonwealth
...case was excessive or cruel was a question for the jury." To the same effect see Ffinkle v. State, 127 Ind. 490, 26 N.E. 777; Stanfield v. State, 43 Tex. 167; Commonwealth v. Blaker, 1 Brewst, Pa., 311. Instruction number 1 correctly lays down the rule which is supported by the great weight......
-
State v. Straight
...cites the following cases as being in accord with this rule: Clasen v. Pruhs, 69 Neb. 278, 95 N.W. 640, 642, 5 Ann.Cas. 112; Stanfield v. State, 43 Tex. 167; Patterson v. Nutter, 78 Me. 509, 7 A. 273, 57 Am.Rep. 818; Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114, 76 Am.Dec. 156; Hinkle v. State, 127 Ind. 49......
-
Carpenter v. Commonwealth
...in this case was excessive or cruel was a question for the jury." To the same effect, see Hinkle State, 127 Ind. 490, 26 N.E. 777; Stanfield State, 43 Tex. 167; Commonwealth Blaker, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 4 Instruction number 1 correctly lays down the rule which is supported by the great weight of......
-
Assiter v. State
...exclusion of the testimony was not harmful to appellant because of its cumulative nature. In his brief appellant cites us to Stanfield v. State, 43 Tex. 167 (1875), for factors which he urges should be considered in determining the reasonableness of appellant's actions and the admissibility......