Case Name: LEWIS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-10-22
Citations: 217 S.W. 695
Docket Number: No. 5491
Parties: LEWIS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 217
Pages: 695–698

Head Matter:
(86 Tex. Cr. R. 135)
LEWIS v. STATE.
(No. 5491.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 22, 1919.
On State’s Motion for Rehearing, Dec. 17, 1919.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 14, 1920.)
On State’s Motion for Rehearing.
1. Criminal law <&wkey;881(4) — 'Verdict not indefinite OR DEFECTIVE.
Where information charged only aggravated assault, hut upon the trial the evidence was such as to present the theory of both aggravated assault and simple assault, and the court instructed the jury upon the law of both offenses, a verdict, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the information, and assess his punishment at a fine of $25,” was not indefinite or defective, notwithstanding Vernon's Ann. Code Or. Proc. 1916, arts. 771, 772.
2. Criminal law &wkey;1144(16) — Language in VERDICT CONSTRUED TO UPHOLD IT.
It is the duty of the courts to give the language used in a verdict every reasonable in-tendment in upholding the same.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;1144(16) — Jury presumed TO HAVE EXPRESSED FINDING WITH REFERENCE TO CHARGE OF COURT.
The jury are presumed to have expressed their finding with reference to the charge of the court, unless in their verdict they state something which shows that such was not their intention.
Appeal from Hannin County; A. P. Bold-ing, Judge.
Einis Lewis was convicted of aggravated assault and appeals.
Affirmed.
. Cunningham, McMahon & Lipscomb, of Bonham, for appellant.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, J.
The appellant was charged by information with the offense of aggravated assault. The information embodied the proposition that a deadly weapon was used, and also that serious bodily injury was inflicted. Upon the trial of the case the evidence was such as to present the theory of both aggravated assault, and simple assault, and the court, recognizing this to be true, instructed the jury upon the law of both offenses. The verdict returned was as follows:
"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, and assess his punishment at a fine of $25."
Prompt objection to the receipt of this verdict because of its indefiniteness was urged, and the action of the court in receiving it and in entering judgment upon it is properly brought here for review. The exact question was before the court in the case of Lee v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 557, 55 S. W. 814. The sole question in that case was a sufficiency of a verdict assessing a fine of $25 against one accused of aggravated assault in a trial where the issue of both aggravated and simple assault was raised and submitted. The court held the verdict defective and uncertain, in that the jury failed to state of which offense the appellant was convicted, and it was not otherwise manifest or discernible from the verdict. A number of decisions to the same effect will be found collated in Branch's Annotated Texas Penal Code, p. 938, § 1595. See, also, notes in Vernon's Texas Criminal Statutes, vol. 2, under article 771, p. 580.
Under the rulé thus declared, the verdict in the instant case is defective, and should not have been received. The- judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded.
— ifni- other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes