Woods v. State
| Decision Date | 11 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4158.) |
| Citation | 188 S.W. 980 |
| Parties | WOODS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Wichita County Court; Harvey Harris, Judge.
Levi Woods was convicted of an aggravated assault and battery upon a female, and he appeals. Judgment affirmed.
Martin & Oneal, of Wichita Falls, for appellant. John Davenport, Asst. Co. Atty., of Wichita Falls, and C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant, an adult male, was convicted of an aggravated assault and battery upon a female. There is but one question in the case, and that is whether the court should have given a charge on alibi.
It seems now to be the settled rule "that, unless the testimony fails to exclude the idea of accused's presence at the time of the commission of the offense, a charge upon the subject of alibi need not be given," and "in no case should a cause be reversed for the refusal of such a charge, unless, in the light of all the testimony, the evidence excludes the theory of appellant's presence at the place of the crime," as said by this court through Judge Ramsey in Underwood v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 605, 117 S. W. 809. The rule is thus again stated: A charge on alibi is not required if defendant's theory is not inconsistent with the state's theory that he was present at the commission of the offense. Underwood v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 604, 117 S. W. 809; Parker v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 121, 49 S. W. 80. And see Hernandez v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 73, 141 S. W. 268; Myers v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. R. 448, 144 S. W. 1134.
The state's theory and testimony was that appellant committed an assault and battery upon his paramour, Mattie Lee Williamson, at her room over the garage on the Ferguson place at 12:30 o'clock at night. The state did not claim that the offense was committed at any other time or place. The testimony of the officer was that he saw the assault and battery committed at this time and place, and that immediately after he saw it he went up into this woman's room and found only appellant and her therein, and no one had left there from the time he saw the assault and battery until he reached the room. Both appellant and the woman testified that he was there at that time, but both denied that he then or at any other time or place committed any assault or battery upon her. She further testified that some unknown "chuffy or heavy built" negro man assaulted her at 10:40 that night, not in her room at all, but elsewhere in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rippey v. State
...to the jury. Crane v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 476, 123 S. W. 422; Williams v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 453, 132 S. W. 345; Woods v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 73, 188 S. W. 980. The testimony of both Blackburn and Hollobaugh showed, if true, the presence of Dick Fitzgerald and his participation in wh......
-
May v. State
...on to establish the alibi is inconsistent with the fact of the presence of the accused at the commission of the offense. Woods v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 73, 188 S. W. 980. In Williams v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 453, 132 S. W. 345, 347, the state relied upon circumstantial evidence to establish......
-
Ashlock v. State, 17792.
...relied on to establish alibi is inconsistent with fact of presence of accused at commission of offense." See, also, Woods v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 73, 188 S.W. 980; Williams v. State, 60 Cr.R. 453, 132 S.W. 345; Underwood v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 601, 117 S.W. 809. Appellant next complains of t......
-
Hampton v. State, 20566.
...at the time and place of the commission of the offense charged. See Parker v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 119, 49 S.W. 80; Woods v. State, 80 Tex. Cr.R. 73, 188 S.W. 980, and authorities Bill number three complaining of the court's action in overruling his second application for a continuance is wi......