Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1886 |
| Citation | 4 S.W. 64 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
The conviction in this case was for an assault to murder one G. H. Gassaway. The penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of three years in the penitentiary. The opinion sufficiently states the case.
Alexander, Winter & Dickenson, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Burts, for the State.
1. The indictment is in the usual form, and the court did not err in overruling exceptions to it. Willson, Crim. Forms, § 357, p. 161, and cases there cited.
2. It is the well-settled law of this state that, when any unlawful and violent attack is made by one person upon another, which reasonably indicates to the person attacked that serious bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him, he may kill the assailant at once, without resorting to other means for the prevention of such threatened injury. Hunnicutt v. State, 20 Tex. App. 642, and cases therein cited; Lee v. State, 21 Tex. App. 241, 3 S. W. Rep. 89. In this case the charge of the court upon the issue of self-defense restricts the right of the defendant to kill his assailant, without first resorting to all other means except retreat to prevent the threatened injury, to the prevention of murder, maiming, or disfiguring, giving him no such right where the injury threatened might have been other serious bodily injury, until he had first resorted to all other means except retreat to prevent such other serious bodily injury. In this respect the charge is defective.
3. It was in proof by two witnesses that prior to the alleged assault by defendant upon Gassaway, and on the same day, said Gassaway had threatened to kill the defendant, and that said threat had, prior to said alleged assault, been communicated to defendant. There was also testimony that at the time of the difficulty, and before the commission of the alleged assault, Gassaway attempted to draw a pistol with which to shoot the defendant, and thus execute said threat. In view of this evidence, the court should have charged the law relating to threats, and it was material error to omit to do so. Sims v. State, 9 Tex. App. 586.
4. Other objections than those above noticed are urged to the charge of the court by counsel for defendant, but the errors complained of are not of a character deemed material, and, in the absence of a bill of exceptions specifically pointing out such errors, we are not called upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maclin v. State
...v. State, 16 Tex. App. 487, 49 Am. Rep. 826; Morgan v. State, 16 Tex. App. 634; Hunnicutt v. State, 20 Tex. App. 643; Williams v. State, 22 Tex. App. 497, 4 S. W. 64; Orman v. State, 22 Tex. App. 604, 3 S. W. 468, 58 Am. Rep. 662; Orman v. State, 24 Tex. App. 502, 6 S. W. 544; Kelly v. Stat......
-
Holmes v. State
...complained of as error, will not bring such matter properly before the court for review.' Smith v. State, 22 Tex. App. 316 ; Williams v. State, 22 Tex. App. 497 . The primary object or purpose of a bill of exception reserved to a charge of the court is to call the attention of the trial jud......
-
Lockhart v. State
...v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 84, 57 S. W. 820; also Alexander v. State, 25 Tex. App. 260, 7 S. W. 867, 8 Am. St. Rep. 438; Williams v. State, 22 Tex. App. 497, 4 S. W. 64. The court charged the law with reference to provoking a difficulty. We have stated sufficiently the facts in regard to this......
-
Stroud v. State
...v. State, 17 Tex. App. 520; Hunnicutt v. State, 18 Tex. App. 498, 51 Am. Rep. 330; Hunnicutt v. State, 20 Tex. App. 643; Williams v. State, 22 Tex. App. 497, 4 S. W. 64; Orman v. State, 24 Tex. App. 502, 6 S. W. 544; Kelly v. State, 27 Tex. App. 566, 11 S. W. 627; Baltrip v. State, 30 Tex. ......