Case ID: sw_158/html/0300-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DUNN v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 28, 1913.
    On Motion for Rehearing, June 25, 1913.)
    1. Indictment and Information (§ 41) — Preliminary Complaini^Requisites and-Sufficiency.
    It is unnecessary to name the person swearing to a criminal complaint in the body of the complaint, and hence the complaint was not defective because the name in the body of the complaint and that signed thereto was not the same.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 152, 163-169; Dec. Dig. § 41.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1056) — -Appeau—Reser-vation of Grounds of Review — Exceptions — Necessity.
    In a misdemeanor case, errors in the charge as given, or in refusing requested charges, cannot be reviewed on appeal, where no exception is reserved at the time.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2668, 2670; Dec. Dig. § 1056.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 954) — Motions for New Trial — Specification of Grounds.
    A motion for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in failing and refusing to give a requested instruction because such instruction was a part of the law of the case, was too general.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal' Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2341, 2363-2367; Dec. Dig. § 954.]
    4. Criminal Law (§ 1172) — Appeal—Error Favorable to Appellant.
    On a trial for aggravated assault, the submission of simple assault was favorable to accused, even though the evidence did not raise that issue.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3128, 3154r-3157, 3159-3163, 3169; Dee. Dig. § 1172.]
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Assault and Battery (§ 78) — Information— Sufficiency.
    An information, reciting that the county attorney in behalf of the state presented that accused, on or about a day specified and before the filing of - the information, with a crutch, then and there being a deadly weapon, unlawfully committed an aggravated assault upon a party named, and with such deadly weapon did then and there strike such person, against the peace and dignity of the state, charged an offense against the law.
    [Ed. Note. — -For other cases, see Assault and Battery, Cent. Dig. §§ 116-122; Dec. Dig. § 78.]
    ■6. Indictment and Information (§ 188) — Verdict — Conformity to Indictment oe Information.
    Such information was sufficient to support a verdict for simple assault.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 580, 581; Dec. Dig. § 188.]
    Appeal from Hood County Court; W. D. Dean, Judge.
    R. B. Dunn was convicted of assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. T. Daniel, of Stephensville, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Information and complaint was filed against appellant, charging him with aggravated assault; when tried he was convicted of simple assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $15.

Appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that in the body of the complaint the person who made it is called Lon Lowe, while it is signed A. P. Lowe; the contention being that there is no proof that Lon Lowe and A. P. Lowe was one and the same person. Under all the decisions of this court, it was unnecessary to name the person swearing to the complaint in the body of the complaint, and, being unnecessary to state the name in the body, this presents no variance. In the case of Malz v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 450, 34 S. W. 267, in the body of the complaint, it stated that R. L. Winfrey was the complainant, while it was signed at the bottom by William Jackson, and in that case the court says: “In the body of the complaint it is not necessary to state the name of the party making the complaint or affidavit at all. The statute requires that the name of the party making such complaint must be signed at the foot of the complaint, and not elsewhere’’ — and therefore the motion to .quash was properly overruled. All of our decisions so hold.

This is a misdemeanor complaint and conviction, and there are no bills of exception in the record. In Brunk v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 264, 131 S. W. 1125, this court, speaking through Presiding Judge Davidson, said: “In the absence of an exception taken at the time, and special instructions requested and refused, we would not feel justified under our practice to reverse a judgment for the supposed error in the charge, even if it be conceded to be error. * * * Under our statute and the decisions construing the statute, the rule in regard to exceptions to the charge in misdemeanors is different from that in felony cases. As before stated, in order for appellant to take advantage of the supposed error he should have excepted to the charge as given at the time, and requested a special instruction properly submitting that issue.” See also Basquez v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 330, 119 S. W. 861. As there were no exceptions to the charge of the court at the time of the trial, in fact in this case, there is none in the motion for new trial, so if the charge of the court should be erroneous, it is not presented in a way we could review it. Two special charges were requested, but no bills of exception were reserved to the failure of the court to give them. It seems that members of the bar will not take into consideration the difference in procedure in felony cases and in misdemean- or cases as prescribed in our statutes and decisions.

Not only were no exceptions reserved at the time of the trial, but the complaints in the motion for the new trial are too general, reading, “Because the court erred in failing and refusing to give in charge to the jury special instruction No. -, because said charge is a part of the law of the case.” Ryan v. State, 142 S. W. 878, and cases cited.

The contention that the court erred in submitting simple assault is a matter about which appellant ought not to complain. If in fact the testimony had not raised that issue, a submission of it would have been favorable to defendant. But in fact the evidence did raise that issue, and- the court would have erred if he had not submitted it.

The evidence for the state amply supports the verdict; and, the testimony offered in behalf of defendant, while admitting he struck Deering, would raise the issue of self-defense. The court in his charge presented this issue to the jury.

The appellant at the time, nor in the motion for new trial, points out do error in this charge, and the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant has filed a lengthy motion for rehearing, citing many authorities holding that if an information charges no offense, this fact may be taken advantage of on appeal. This is unquestionably the law, but the information in this case reads: “In the Name and by the Authority of the State of Texas: I, Junior M. Ator, county attorney of the county of Hood, state aforesaid, in behalf of said state, presents in the county court of said county, at the December term, A. D. 1912, of said court, that R. B. Dunn on or about the 30th day of November, A. D. one thousand nine hundred and twelve, and before the filing of this information, in the county of Hood and state of Texas, R. B. Dunn, with a crutch, the same then and there being a deadly weapon, did unlawfully commit an aggravated assault in and upon Knox Deering, and with said deadly weapon did then and there strike the said Knox Deering, against the peace and dignity of the state. Junior M. Ator, County Attorney of Hood County, said State.” This unquestionably charges an offense against the law, and is sufficient to support a verdict for simple assault. All the other questions were passed on in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.