Case ID: tex-crim_32/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HURT, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

B. F. Thompson v. The State.
    
      No. 191.
    
    
      Decided June 7.
    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.
    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.'
    
      Farrar, Kincaid & Williams, for appellant.
    
      B. L. Henry, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   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.