Trimble v. State, 23207.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 23207.,23207. |
| Parties | TRIMBLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Rusk County; R. T. Brown, Judge.
John Trimble was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
James E. Faulkner, of Coldspring, for appellant.
Ernest S. Goens, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is an assault with intent to murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.
Appellant's chief contention is that the evidence is insufficient to justify and sustain his conviction. The evidence adduced by the State, briefly stated, shows that a difficulty arose between Ben Hillin, a white man, and appellant, a negro, over some money. Hillin testified that as he was walking down the sidewalk on the night of October 23, 1943, appellant came up behind him and said: "God damn, I want some whisky"; that he (appellant) had a bill in his hand and said that he had $10 for two pints of whisky. Hillin further testified that the bill did not look like a ten dollar bill; that he took it to the light, examined it and remarked: "Man, you haven't got any ten-dollar bill; it is a one-dollar bill", whereupon appellant grabbed the bill and demanded nine additional dollars. This precipitated a heated argument and culminated in a fight; that appellant knocked Hillin down between two cars when Jake Gamble ran up and tried to kick appellant off; that appellant then cut Gamble with a knife on the lower part of the jaw and neck. The record shows that the knife used by appellant was a pocket-knife with two blades, one of which was about 1½ inches long and the other was about 2¾ or 3 inches long.
Jake Gamble, the alleged injured party, testified that he heard an argument between Hillin and appellant; that he looked in that direction and saw appellant knock Hillin down between two automobiles and then get on top of him; that he (Gamble) ran up and tried to kick appellant off of Hillin; that when he did so appellant cut him, then fled and made no further effort to injure him. At the conclusion of the difficulty, he went to the hospital where he received medical treatment; that he did not remain at the hospital long but stayed at home for a few days.
The doctor who treated Gamble testified that he had a long wound across the side of his neck and face just below the edge of the angle of the jawbone; that the wound, in the condition it was in, would not have caused death. This is all the testimony relative to the nature and character of the wound.
Appellant testified that he was sitting on a fender between two cars on the night in question when Ben Hillin came up to him and asked him for a drink of whisky; that he told Hillin he did not have any whisky but had a ten dollar bill with which to buy some; that Hillin took the ten dollar bill for the purpose of getting some whisky but returned in about ten or fifteen minutes and said: "Boy, you haven't any ten-dollar bill; it is a one-dollar bill." Appellant insisted that he had given him $10 which Hillin denied, and this produced an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 42390
...intent must be shown, Gipson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 794; Hernandez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 285; Trimble v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 190 S.W.2d 123; Ammann v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 34, 165 S.W.2d 744; Cheeks v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 184, 247 S.W.2d 893; Richard v. State, ......
-
Richard v. State, 40603
...leads me to conclude that the situation presented here is almost on all fours with that before the Court in Trimble v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 190 S.W.2d 123. There, as here, the injured party intervened at a time when the accused was making an attack upon a third party. In that case the ......
-
Robinson v. State
...and circumstances are insufficient to show that appellant intended to kill the injured party. Ammann v. State, supra; Trimble v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 190 S.W.2d 123. The State contends that the fact that the injured party was cut on the throat is, alone, enough to show an intent to kil......
-
Honeycutt v. State, 25698
...instrument with which the assault is committed is a deadly weapon per se, as here, the intent to kill may be inferred. Trimble v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 190 S.W.2d 123; Kincaid v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 198 S.W.2d We are constrained to conclude that under the facts presented the jury w......