Young v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37314,37314 |
| Citation | 384 S.W.2d 710 |
| Parties | Donald Ray YOUNG, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Curry & Curry by Tim C. Curry, Fort Worth (on appeal only), for appellant.
Doug Crouch, Dist. Atty., Grady Hight and R. J. Adcock, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The offense is assault with intent to murder with malice; the punishment, confinement in the state penitentiary for 5 years.
On the night of the 15th of July, 1962, the injured party, Burton Glenn Howard, and a friend Perry Stacey were at the Meadowbrook Drive-In Theater in Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. Attending the same theater was the appellant, Donald Ray Young, and his friend Drury Pierce. At some time during the evening in question the four men exchanged words, threats, etc., until the situation developed into a heated argument. At this point, Drury Pierce made contact with Howard and a fight started. The appellant and Howard became involved and the appellant's companion, Pierce, commenced fighting Perry Stacey.
After the altercation the injured party was slumped against a bench bleeding from several lacerations, and a knife was observed on the ground. Howard was subsequently taken to the Carswell Air Force Base Hospital where surgery was performed, removing one of his kidneys. A further convalescence of three months was required before Howard was able to perform limited work. A medical doctor testified that the kidney had been punctured and, unless properly cared for, the wound received by Howard could likely have caused death.
Direct identification of the appellant as the individual attacking Howard was established by Howard's companion Perry Stacey.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction because the weapon, which was not introduced into evidence, was not shown to have been used in a manner calculated to produce death or serious bodily injury, nor were the injuries received shown to be such as to justify the inference that such a weapon was used.
The wounds were caused by some sharp instrument. The kidney was punctured, and had to be removed.
Specific intent to kill is an essential element of the offense of assault with intent to murder. Art. 1160 Vernon's Ann.P.C. Such intent may be intent may be inferred. 'If the weapon used is not deadly, the intent to kill * * * may be ascertained from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flanagan v. State
...dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual."3 Robertson v. State, 426 S.W.2d 872 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Young v. State, 384 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.Cr.App.1964).4 "The word 'attempt' means to try; it implies an effort to bring about a desired result. Hence an attempt to commit any c......
-
Thames v. State
...of the witness is necessary to establish abuse of judicial discretion. Sustaita v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 396 S.W.2d 381; Young v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 710; Bradshaw v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 469, 320 S.W.2d If absent testimony be considered as cumulative, when the defense is alibi, th......
-
Ojeda v. State
...Varela v. State, 561 S.W.2d 186, 191 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Benoit v. State, 561 S.W.2d 810, 817 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Young v. State, 384 S.W.2d 710, 711 (Tex.Crim.App.1964); Duncan v. State, 899 S.W.2d 279, 282 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, pet. ref'd); Love v. State, 730 S.W.2d 385,......
-
Samuel v. State
...ever provable by direct testimony, but is to be inferred from acts, words and conduct of the party accused.' And in Young v. State, 384 S.W.2d 710, 711 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), it was 'Specific intent to kill is an essential element of the offense of assault with intent to murder. Art. 1160 Verno......