Coffey v. State
Opinions
This conviction was for aggravated assault. Appellant was tried before the court; without a jury. There are no bills of exception in the record.
There were two counts. The first attempted to charge an aggravated assault upon a female by an adult male. This count was defective in failing to allege the date of the offense within the period of limitation. The second count charged the offense to have been [385]*385committed by running an automobile into and against another automobile in which the injured party was seated, inflicting upon her serious bodily injury.
Appellant sought a motion for new trial on the ground that there was no intent to inflict the injury proved. In this character of offense the absence of intent is, generally speaking, defensive (Vernon’s P. 0. art. 1009, p. 564); and, the evidence in this ease-disclosing that appellant inflicted upon the .party named in the iildictment a serious bodily injury, the intent will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of which there is none introduced. Thompson v. State, 89 S. W. 1081.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
200 S.W. 384 (Coffey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.