Styles v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Styles v. State

40 S.W. 498, 37 Tex. Crim. 599, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 5, 1897

DocketNo. 1266.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 40 S.W. 498 (Styles 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

Styles v. State, 40 S.W. 498, 37 Tex. Crim. 599, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141 (Tex. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of an aggravated assault, and fined $25; hence this appeal. It is contended that the verdict is vague, indefinite, uncertain, and not sufficiently specific to support the judgment based upon it. It reads as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as in the indictment,” etc.; the weakness in said verdict being found in the fact that the word “charged” is omitted between the words “as” and “in.” There is nothing in this contention. The verdict is sufficiently specific, and clearly exhibits the intent of the jury. It is also contended that the verdict is insufficient, inasmuch as it does not sufficiently specify the grade of assault of which it is intended to find defendant guilty, because the charge of aggravated assault embodies within it a charge of simple assault, and the conviction may have been for the smaller offense. We think this alleged error is without merit. The charge of the court submits only the offense of aggravated assault. The issue of simple assault was not before the jury. They were not authorized to pass upon it, and were not charged with reference to it. Under this state of case, the verdict is sufficiently specific and certain, and is responsive to the charge and the testimony. The evidence amply supports the conviction, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of an aggravated assault, and fined $25; hence this appeal. It is contended that the verdict is vague, indefinite, uncertain, and not sufficiently specific to support the judgment based upon it. It reads as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as in the indictment,” etc.; the weakness in said verdict being found in the fact that the word “charged” is omitted between the words “as” and “in.” There is nothing in this contention. The verdict is sufficiently specific, and clearly exhibits the intent of the jury. It is also contended that the verdict is insufficient, inasmuch as it does not sufficiently specify the grade of assault of which it is intended to find defendant guilty, because the charge of aggravated assault embodies within it a charge of simple assault, and the conviction may have been for the smaller offense. We think this alleged error is without merit. The charge of the court submits only the offense of aggravated assault. The issue of simple assault was not before the jury. They were not authorized to pass upon it, and were not charged with reference to it. Under this state of case, the verdict is sufficiently specific and certain, and is responsive to the charge and the testimony. The evidence amply supports the conviction, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 S.W. 498, 37 Tex. Crim. 599, 1897 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/styles-v-state-texcrimapp-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack