Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1896 |
| Citation | 36 S.W. 265 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Navarro county; Rufus Hardy, Judge.
Lee Thompson was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
Mann Trice, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of an assault with intent to murder, and given two years in the penitentiary, and from the judgment of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal.
There is no bill of exceptions in the record. It appears, from the evidence in the case, that appellant was a prisoner confined in the jail of Navarro county, and the sheriff had taken him out for a bath, and in the meantime left one Ras Hardy in the cell, who occupied the same cell with the appellant. McAfee, the jailer, went in with the appellant, and opened the cell to let him in, when Ras Hardy rushed out of the cell, and made an assault on him with a razor, and cut him four or five times about the neck. Said McAfee struggled with him, and his pistol fell out of his scabbard, and appellant grabbed it, and presented the pistol at said McAfee, and they compelled him to go into the cell. The parties acted together in the assault. They made no attempt to injure the jailer after he went into the cell, but locked him in. There could be no question that the appellant and his co-defendant, Hardy, in making the assault on the jailer, intended to make their escape. They did not intend to kill him if they could make their escape without taking his life, but they did intend to kill him if they had to do so in order to make their escape. They had no lawful right to resist the jailer, or to use force upon him in order to make their escape; and if, at any time during the struggle, they entertained the intent to kill him in order to effect that escape, and they used means calculated to accomplish that purpose, then appellant is guilty of an assault with intent to murder. Undoubtedly, when Ras Hardy, the co-defendant of the appellant, was cutting and slashing the jailer about the neck with the razor, he had the intent and purpose to take his life, in order to overpower him and effect his escape. Appellant was a party to this assault, and participated in this purpose, and was as much guilty of an assault with intent to murder as the said Ras Hardy. Moreover, there can be no question of the intent to kill the said McAfee, when he drew the pistol on him and commanded him to go into the cell, if the said McAfee had refused to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Godsey v. State
...188 S.W.2d 582 (1945); Honey v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 98, 102 S.W.2d 224 (1937); Hatton, supra. However, see also Thompson v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 448, 36 S.W. 265 (1896) where the defendant "presented" a gun to the sheriff and forced the sheriff into a cell so that the defendants could escap......
-
Brown v. State, No. 01-08-00081-CR (Tex. App. 12/4/2008)
...pulling a loaded revolver and aiming it at two officers was sufficient to establish intent to kill); see also Thompson v. State, 36 S.W. 265, 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1896) (holding that defendant's pointing a gun at a sheriff was enough to infer that he intended on using it); Patrick v. State,......
-
People v. Connors
...is complete, regardless of whether the weapon is discharged or not. Hardy v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 400, 37 S. W. 434;Thompson v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 448, 36 S. W. 265;State v. Dooley, 121 Mo. 591, 26 S. W. 558. The foregoing propositions are so well established that we do not deem it nece......
-
Robinson v. State
...the state cannot be required to elect and confine itself to one count upon which it shall rely for conviction. Thompson v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 448, 36 S. W. 265; Dill v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 240, 33 S. W. 126, 60 Am. St. Rep. 2. On the trial appellant filed a motion to require the court,......
-
Mens rea and inchoate crimes.
...1955); McKinnon v. United States, 644 A.2d 438 (D.C. App. 1994); Commonwealth v. Hogg, 311 N.E.2d 63 (Mass. 1974); Thompson v. State, 36 S.W. 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1896); State v. Dooley, 26 S.W. 558 (Mo. 1894); State v. Morgan, 25 N.C. 186 (1842). But see State v. Irwin, 285 S.E.2d 345 (N.C......