Case Name: SOLIS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-01-20
Citations: 174 S.W. 343
Docket Number: No. 3390
Parties: SOLIS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 174
Pages: 343–345

Head Matter:
SOLIS v. STATE.
(No. 3390.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 20, 1915.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 17, 1915.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
1. Criminal Law <&wkey;llRL-AppEAL — Delay in Filing Statement of Facts anb Bills oe Exception.
Where the failure to file the bills of exception and statement of facts within the time permitted by law was due to no negligence of accused, he was entitled to have the entire record considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2918, 2921; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;> 1114.]
2. Homicide <&wkey;89 — Assault with Intent to Murder — Acts Constituting.
Where accused applied opprobrious epithets to G., and, after G. had knocked him down, attacked G., he was guilty of assault to murder, if he applied such epithets with the intention of provoking a difficulty and killing G.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 115-118; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;89.]
3. Assault and Battery &wkey;>54r — Aggravated Assault — Acts Constituting.
If accused, when he “hollered” as he approached G., intended to bring on trouble with G., but had no intention of killing him, his attack on G., after G. had knocked him down, was no graver offense than aggravated assault.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Assault and Battery, Cent. Dig. §§ 75-7S; Dec. Dig.
54.]
4. Assault and Battery <&wkey;54^-AGGRAVAT-ed Assault — Acts Constituting.
If accused provoked a difficulty with G., with no intention of killing him, and after being knocked down by G. formed an intention to kill, he was only guilty of aggravated assault, if his mind was rendered incapable of cool reflection by G.’s blows.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Assault and Battery, Cent. Dig. §§ 75-78; Dec. Dig. &wkey;> 54.]
5. Homicide <&wkey;310 — Assault with Intent to Murder — Instructions — ‘ ‘Adequate Cause.”
On a trial for assault to murder, the court, in charging on self-defense, should have told the jury that if accused provoked the difficulty, with no intention of killing, and was assaulted by the prosecuting witness, and driven to the necessity of cutting as a matter of self-preservation, he would be guilty of no higher offense than aggravated assault, if the blows and assault caused such pain as to produce anger, rage, or fear , to an extent rendering his mind incapable of cool reflection, as the statute provides that a blow causing pain is “adequate cause.”
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 657-661; Dec. Dig <&wkey;>310.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Adequate Cause.]
6. Witnesses <&wkey;318 — Evidence to Sustain Chabactee of Witness.
On a criminal trial, evidence that the reputation of the prosecuting witness as a peaceable, law-abiding citizen was good should not have been admitted, where accused had not attacked the reputation of such .witness.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1084-1086; Dec. Dig. &wkey;318J
7. Homicide &wkey;>310 —< INSTRUCTIONS— Evidence-Question fob Juey.
Where, on a trial for assault to murder, the evidence showed beyond doubt that serious bodily injury was inflicted, the court properly refused to charge on simple assault.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 657-661; Dee. Dig. @=^>310.]
Appeal from District Court, Aransas County; F. G. Chambliss, Judge.
Baltazan Solis was convicted of assault to murder, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
E. Gordon. Gibson, of Rockport, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of assault to murder, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at two years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
The Assistant Attorney General makes a motion to strike out the statement of facts and bills of exception accompanying the record. As they were not filed within the time permitted under the law, the motion must be sustained; and without a statement of facts and bills of exception there is no ground in the motion for new trial we can review.
The judgment is affirmed.
(gssFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all ICey-Numbered Digests and Indexes
<§^For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests 'and Indexes