Case Name: Finis Lewis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-10-22
Citations: 86 Tex. Crim. 135
Docket Number: No. 5491
Parties: Finis Lewis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 135–141

Head Matter:
Finis Lewis v. The State.
No. 5491.
October 22, 1919.
Rehearing denied January 14, 1920.
1. —Aggravated Assault—Verdict—Begree of Ofiense.
Where, upon trial of aggravated assault, the information charged one count, and the court submitted to the jury in his charge both aggravated and simple assault, and they found the defendant guilty as charged in the information and assessed his fine at twenty-five dollars, the contention that the verdict should have stated whether defendant was guilty of aggravated of simple assault is untenable, and there is no reversible error. Following: McGee v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 190, and other cases. Distinguishing: Lee v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 557.
2. —Same—Statutes Construed—Begree of Ofiense—Former Decisions.
Under articles 771 and 772, Vernon’s C. C. P., it is clear, the conflict of decisions has arisen, if there he such conflict, and in the cases cited by appellant as holding the opposite to the decision in the instant case, it will be found that in most of them the court in his charge submitted the different degrees of the offense and the jury found defendant guilty generally, or guilty as charged, frequently assessing, a punishment which might be inflicted for either the higher or lower degree submitted, are in entire accord with the holding in this case.
3. —Same—Verdict—Charge of Court—Intention of Jury—Pleading.
While the jury are presumed to express their finding with reference to the charge of the court, it must follow that when the information or in. dictment contains but one count, and the verdict recites that the accused is guilty as charged in the information or indictment, and a punishment is fixed which is allowed by law for either of the offenses submitted by the court, the court must look to the indictment or information referred to In the verdict in order to ascertain the intendment of the jury. Following: Cohea v. State, 11 Texas Crim. App., 153, and other cases.
Appeal from the County Court of Fannin. Tried below before the Hon. A. P. Bolding, judge.
Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of twenty-five dollars.
The opinion states the case.
Cunningham, McMahon & Lipscomb, for appellant.
On question of indefiniteness of verdict: Moody v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 232; Winzel v. State, 47 id., 267; Williams v. State, 44 id., 316, and cases cited in the opinion.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Judge.
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 ease of Lee v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 557. The sole question in that case was a sufficiency of a verdict assessing a fine c1 $25, against one accused of aggravated assault in a trial where tbn. 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, page 938, Sec. 1595. See also notes in Vernon's Texas Criminal Statutes, vol. 2, under Art. 771, page 580.
Under the rule 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.
Reversed and remanded.