Case Name: Mike Jones v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-05-19
Citations: 89 Tex. Crim. 355
Docket Number: No. 6221
Parties: Mike Jones v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 355–358

Head Matter:
Mike Jones v. The State.
No. 6221.
Decided May 19, 1921.
1. —Assault to Murder—Notice of Appeal—Jurisdiction.
Without notice of appeal this court has no jurisdiction; however, where the omission in the record was supplied, the dismissal is set aside.
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Assault to Murder—Intent—Shot Fired at Another than the one intended.
Where the indictment charged that the defendant made an assault in and upon Jud Mathis with intent to murder, etc., and the evidence showed that the shot was fired at another, which injured Mathis, the court correctly instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant with malice aforethought fired the shot that injured Mathis with the specific intent to kill another, he would be guilty of an assault with intent to murder Mathis. Following Mathis v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 552, and other cases.
3. —Same—Rule Stated—Intent—Shot Fired Hitting Third Farty—Pleading.
Assuming that defendant fired at Elliott, and wounded Mathis, it was within the discretion of the State to charge an assault upon both Elliott and Mathis or upon either of them, but the conviction or acquittal, in one case would bar the prosecution in the other; Following Spannel v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 423, The fact that defendant wounded Mathis whom he did not intend to kill would not excuse him, as he fired with malice intending to kill Elliott.
4. —Same—Indictment—Intent to Injure Another Than the Party Assaulted.
It is not essential that the indictment should contain averments setting out all the facts which it is necessary that the State prove in order to sustain the conviction, and where the indictment charged an assault upon Mathis and the evidence showed that he intended to assault another with intent to murder, the conviction was sustained. Following Dodd v. State, 83 Texas Crim. Rep., 164, and other cases.
5. —Same—Newly Discovered Evidence—Motion for New Trial.
Where the alleged newly-discovered evidence was known to defendant before the trial, there was no error in overruling the motion for new trial on this ground.
Appeal from the District Court of Marion. Tried below before the Honorable J. A. Ward.
Appeal from a conviction of assault with intent to murder; penalty, ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
T. D. Rowell, for appellant.
—Cited cases in opinion.
R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
The conviction is for assault with iiiLcnt to murder; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of ten years.
We find it necessary to sustain the motion made by the State to dismiss the appeal because of the absence of any notice of appeal. Without notice of appeal this court has no jurisdiction. Article 915, Vernon's Texas Criminal Statutes, Vol. 2, page 877 and cases there listed.
Dismissed.