Case ID: tex-crim_71/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank Anderson v. The State.
    No. 2688.
    Decided October 29, 1913.
    Assault—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Intent.
    Where, upon trial of an aggravated assault, the testimony for the State was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the defense of innocent intention was at the request of the defendant properly submitted to the jury, there was no reversible error.
    Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. Jesse. M. Brown.
    Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assaultpenalty, a fine of $25.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of making an assault on Mrs. Lorine Smith.

The only question presented is one raising the issue that the testimony is insufficient to sustain the conviction. While it is true the testimony offered in behalf of appellant would show an innocent intention, yet the testimony of Mrs. Smith and her husband would make a case and the court at the request of appellant instructed the jury:

“Even tho you believe from the evidence defendant took the prosecuting witness by the arm or hand, but by reason thereof she did not feel any sense of shame or other disagreeable emotions of the mind or if defendant thought or had reason to believe that such act on his part would be agreeably received by her—or if you have a reasonable doubt of such facts, you will acquit him.”

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.