Thompson v. State

B. F. Thompson v. the State

Thompson v. State, 22 S.W. 979 (Tex. Crim. App. 1893)

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided: June 7, 1893
Docket: No. 191.
Judges: Hurt
Citations: 22 S.W. 97932 Tex. Crim. 2651893 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 259

Headnotes

1. Information—Election Between Counts.—Where an information-contained two or more counts relating to the same transaction, it is not error for the court to refuse to compel the State to elect upon which count she would prosecute. 2. Charge of the Court, Exceptions to — Practice on Appeal.— An exception generally to the charge of the court is insufficient. An exception to the charge, to be entitled to notice on appeal, must point out the objection.

Summary

Appeal from the County Court of Limestone.' Tried below before-. Hon. W. Gr. Rucker, County Judge. This was a prosecution for aggravated assault, under an information containing two counts; one charging the defendant, a person of robust health and strength, with an assault upon W. M. Bell, an aged and decrepit man; the other alleging the use of a pistol by the defendant, a dangerous and deadly weapon, in an angry and threatening manner, with intent to alarm said Bell, and under circumstances calculated to effect that object. On his trial, appellant was found guilty as charged, and his punishment assessed as a fine of $25. The evidence was conflicting, but without stating the facts, suffice it to say, that if the testimony for the prosecution was true, the case was fully made out by the State.'

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hurt

HURT, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery upon W. M. Bell, an aged and decrepit person, and his punishment assessed at $25. The evidence is conflicting. If Bell’s testimony be true, the appellant is guilty. On the other hand, if the version of the difficulty as given by appellant be correct, he is not guilty under either count. Counsel for the appellant requested the court to require the State to elect upon which count she would prosecute. This was refused. Both counts referring to the same transaction, the ruling was correct. There is a general exception to the charge of the court. This is not sufficient. It must point out the objection to the charge. The requested instructions refused by the court were not more favorable to appellant than those given on the same subjects. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges all present and concurring.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Ligon v. State198 S.W. 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917)
Modica v. State251 S.W. 1049 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923)
Keeton v. State128 S.W. 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1910)
People v. Hart37 P. 330 (Utah 1894)
Tucker v. State145 S.W. 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
Rosenbaum v. Roche101 S.W. 1164 (Tex. App. 1907)

Most recent

Modica v. State251 S.W. 1049 (Tex. Crim. App. 1923)
Jones v. State232 S.W. 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 1921)
Ligon v. State198 S.W. 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917)
Robison v. State179 S.W. 1157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)
McDonald v. State164 S.W. 831 (Tex. Crim. App. 1914)
Mueller v. State153 S.W. 1142 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list