Jennings v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Jennings v. State

244 S.W.2d 219, 156 Tex. Crim. 506, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1667

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 12, 1951

DocketNo. 25542

StatusPublished

This text of 244 S.W.2d 219 (Jennings v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jennings v. State, 244 S.W.2d 219, 156 Tex. Crim. 506, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1667 (Tex. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Assault with intent to murder with malice is the offense; the punishment, seven years in the penitentiary.

That appellant at close range fired three shots at the injured party with a .38 caliber pistol, one of which shots took effect and struck her in the back, is shown by the state’s witnesses.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted firing the shots but claimed that he shot in self-defense.

Appellant, in his brief, urges that the facts do not warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt. With this contention we do not agree. The assault was inflicted with a deadly weapon, per se, resulting in serious bodily injury. It would be a strange doctrine, indeed, to say that one shooting at another at close range with a .38 caliber pistol did not, as a matter of law, intend to kill. This we are unwilling to hold. The facts abundantly support the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Honey v. State, 132 Tex. Cr. R. 98, 102 S. W. 2d 224; Rios v. State, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 180 S. W. 2d 439.

Several bills of exception appear in the transcript; notwithstanding appellant did not discuss these in his brief, we have examined them and fail to find that reversible error is reflected therein. These bills are overruled without discussion.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Assault with intent to murder with malice is the offense; the punishment, seven years in the penitentiary.

That appellant at close range fired three shots at the injured party with a .38 caliber pistol, one of which shots took effect and struck her in the back, is shown by the state’s witnesses.

Appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted firing the shots but claimed that he shot in self-defense.

Appellant, in his brief, urges that the facts do not warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt. With this contention we do not agree. The assault was inflicted with a deadly weapon, per se, resulting in serious bodily injury. It would be a strange doctrine, indeed, to say that one shooting at another at close range with a .38 caliber pistol did not, as a matter of law, intend to kill. This we are unwilling to hold. The facts abundantly support the jury’s conclusion of guilt. Honey v. State, 132 Tex. Cr. R. 98, 102 S. W. 2d 224; Rios v. State, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 326, 180 S. W. 2d 439.

Several bills of exception appear in the transcript; notwithstanding appellant did not discuss these in his brief, we have examined them and fail to find that reversible error is reflected therein. These bills are overruled without discussion.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 S.W.2d 219, 156 Tex. Crim. 506, 1951 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennings-v-state-texcrimapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack