Yelton v. State
Decision Date | 21 October 1914 |
Docket Number | (No. 3246.) |
Parties | YELTON v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Donley County Court; J. C. Killough, Judge.
Ed Yelton was convicted of assault, and he appeals. Affirmed.
E. A. Simpson and King & Ritchey, all of Clarendon, for appellant. W. T. Link, Co. Atty., of Clarendon, and C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted, charged with an aggravated assault, the indictment reading:
"On or about Dec. 1st, 1913, Ed Yelton did unlawfully with a pocketknife, the same being then and there a deadly weapon, commit an aggravated assault in and upon J. M. Clark."
Appellant contends that this indictment does not embrace a charge of simple assault, and the court erred in submitting that issue, and the verdict cannot be sustained, because the indictment does not charge that the assault was made with "intent to injure." It is not necessary to allege in the indictment or information and complaint the intent to injure, and it has been held by this court that one charged with an aggravated assault may be convicted of a simple assault if the facts justify such finding. Davis v. State, 20 Tex. App. 302.
The state's witness J. M. Clark testified:
Appellant testified in his own behalf that the night before the alleged assault he had been informed by his wife that Clark had laughed and sneered at her; that he could not sleep, and it preyed upon his mind. The next morning he looked out of his shop, saw Clark on the opposite side of the street, and in his own language he says:
On cross-examination he said he did not like Clark, but that he was only intending to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lowe v. State
...is silent, and upon which there should have been averments setting up the facts upon which appellant relied as excusing delay. Yelton v. State, 170 S. W. 318, and cases listed in Vernon's C. C. P. p. 307, note There were no exceptions filed to the court's charge, which, with the special cha......
-
Bedford v. State
...and securing his presence. This is clearly not diligence. Vernon's C. C. P., p. 307, for collation of authorities; Yelton v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 38, 170 S. W. 318; Brown v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 119, 22 S. W. The refusal of the continuance was made a ground of the motion for new trial. Wh......
-
Hall v. State
...916; Smith v. State, 57 S. W. 949; Werner v. State, 68 S. W. 681; Smith v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. R. 281, 136 S. W. 1063; Yelton v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 38, 170 S. W. 318. This case, however, must be reversed upon another ground. In drawing the information the pleader seems to have proceeded u......
-
Dix v. State
...with appellant's own testimony as to the transaction involved. This bill of exception is overruled under the authority of Yelton v. State, 75 Tex.Cr.R. 38, 170 S.W. 318; Wilson v. State, 121 Tex. Cr.R. 250, 53 S.W.2d 43; Kaylor v. State, 47 Tex.Cr.R. 532, 85 S.W. During the progress of the ......