TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Samuels v. State

Hyman Samuels v. State

Samuels v. State, 8 S.W. 656 (Tex. App. 1888)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 6, 1888
Docket
No. 6050
Judges
Hurt
Citations
8 S.W. 65625 Tex. Ct. App. 5371888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 95
Syllabus
1. Practice—Pleading—Former Conviction is a defense which must be specially pleaded, and the plea must be verified by the affidavit of the defendant. The only exception to this rule is that if the accused has been convicted of an offense inferior in degree to that charged, and the judgment has been reversed or a new trial awarded, he is not required, when placed on trial again in the same case and the same court, to plead former acquittal of the greater offense. S. Assault.—A single “ difficulty ” does not necessarily signify but a single assault. On the contrary, a number of assaults may grow out of a single “difficulty,” and a conviction be had for each assault.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Falls. Tried below before the Hon. John H. Wharton, County Judge. The opinion states the case. The penalty assessed was a fine of five dollars.

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

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hurt, Judge.

Appellant was tried and convicted for a simple assault upon an information presented in the county court of Falls county, charging him with aggravated assault and battery upon one Joe Richardson with a knife, a deadly weapon. The only plea interposed to the information was “not guilty.”

The learned judge instructed the jury as to aggravated assault and battery, and also as to what is commonly known as simple assault. Counsel for appellant objected to any charge upon the latter, contending that defendant must be convicted of the aggravated offense or be acquitted.

There is no statement of facts in the record, but it appears from the bill of exception that defendant had pleaded guilty before the mayor of the city of Marlin to a simple assault and battery, and was fined five dollars. The bill states that defendant “had pleaded guilty to a simple assault and battery on said Richardson, growing out of the same difficulty.”

*538 Opinion delivered June 6, 1888.

We hold: 1. That the accused must specially plead former conviction. (Code Crim. Proc., art. 525.) This plea must be verified by the affidavit of the defendant. (Art. 526.) That former conviction or acquittal must be specially pleaded is the common law rule. That the State proves the former conviction does not alter the rule. This rule has this exception: When the accused has been tried and convicted of a less offense than that charged, if the judgment is reversed or a new trial awarded, when again placed on trial in the same case and the same court, he need not plead the acquittal of the greater offense.

2. A number of assaults may grow out of or result from°the same difficulty, and still be separate and distinct transactions, for which the parties thereto may for each transaction bB prosecuted to conviction.

There is no error for which this judgment should be reversed. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1904: 11970: 11971: 11974: 11993: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ex Parte Scelles511 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
  2. Shaffer v. State477 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)
  3. Duckett v. State454 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
  4. Little v. State853 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App. 1993)
  5. Mann v. Commonwealth80 S.W. 438 (Ky. Ct. App. 1904)

Most recent

  1. Little v. State853 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. App. 1993)
  2. Ex Parte Scelles511 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
  3. Shaffer v. State477 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971)
  4. Duckett v. State454 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
  5. Mann v. Commonwealth80 S.W. 438 (Ky. Ct. App. 1904)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list