Case Name: James Jackson v. The State of Texas
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 229
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Jackson v. The State of Texas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 229–232

Head Matter:
James Jackson v. The State of Texas.
Where a party is indicted for an aggravated assault, under article 488 of the Penal Code, (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2150, Notes 660, 663,) he might be convicted of a simple assault; but he cannot complain of a charge to the jury which left them no alternative but to find him guilty of a violent assault, or not guilty of any offense.
The court, after defining the whole law of assault, said: “ If, from the evidence before you, you believe that the defendant is guilty, as charged in the indictment, you will find him guilty, and assess his fine at any sum not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.” And the judge refused to charge, that if the jury find from the evidence that the defendant did not commit an aggravated assault, they can then determine whether he committed a simple assault and battery, and can assess his fine at any sum not exceeding $100. The State might complain of this; the accused could not legally do so.
Ebbob from San Saba. The case was tried before Hon. Edwabd H. Vontbess, one of the district judges.
Jackson was indicted for an aggravated assault and battery upon the body of Thomas Montgomeiy. It was proved that Jackson made a fierce assault upon Montgomery, in the wheat-field of the latter, and struck him a severe blow with a stick, drew his pistol upon him, and threw rocks at him. The charge was long; but the only part of it which need be noticed is given in the opinion of the court.
The judge found the defendant guilty, and assessed his fine at $100, upon which the court rendered a judgment; from which the defendant appealed.
W. L. §• G. L. Robarás, for the appellant.
—This charge excludes from, the jury the idea that they could, under the indictment, find the defendant guilty of “simple assault.” The maxim, “ expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” will apply. It is, in effect, telling them they must find him guilty of an “ aggravated assault,” or not guilty. In no part of the charge does the court instruct the jury that they may find him guilty of a “simple assault,” nor does he even tell them the penalty of a simple assault.
And especially was it error in the court, when the attention of the court was drawn to the omission, by the charge asked by defendant.
"We refer the court to the cases of Gardenheir v. State, 4 Tex., 348; Givens v. State, 6 Tex., 344; Johnson v. State, 17 Tex., 517.
The court, in effect, assumed that an aggravated assault had been proven.
It is improper in the court to assume that any fact has been proven, however strong the evidence may be. (White v. State, 13 Tex., 133.)
Geo. Flournoy, Attorney General, for the State.
—The only point urged in appellant’s brief, is the refusal of the court to give an instruction to the jury, and the imperfection of the general charge. There is no bill of exceptions, and it does not appear anywhere in the record that exception was taken to the charge when given, or to the refusal of the court to give the charge asked. The motion for new trial for the first time disclosed the fact, that the action of the comt was unsatisfactory.
The statute is imperative. (Code Crim. Pro., 602, O. & W. Dig., p. 635.) The objection to the action of the court came too late.

Opinion:
Robebts, J.
—The facts in proof made out a clear case of aggravated assault and battery. There is no conflict in the evidence, no impeachment of the witnesses, and nothing in the case tending to cast any doubt upon the guilt of the defendent as charged.
The court delivered to the jury a charge appropriate in the ease as one of aggravated assault, but declined to give any instructions in relation to the penalty which the jury might impose, in the event they found defendant guilty of a simple assault and battery. The only part of the charge which it is necessary to notice is as follows, to wit: "If you, from the evidence before you, believe that the defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment, you will find him guilty, and assess his fine in any sum not less than $100 nor more than $1,000."
The. charge in the indictment being for an aggravated assault, the jury were bound under this charge of the court to be satisfied that the facts proved made out an aggravated assault before they could find him guilty at all. This may have required too much of the State to secure a conviction of some sort upon this indictment. The State did not, however, complain of this; and the question now is, has the defendant a right to complain that the court did not give a charge to the jury which would permit them to find him guilty of a less offense, if they did not believe him guilty of the one charged in the indictment, to wit, an aggravated assault? That is the substance of the charge asked by the defendant and refused by the court. Its refusal did not authorize the jury to find the defendant guilty of an aggravated assault upon evidence less complete and satisfactory than that which would make out an aggravated assault, and therefore could work no legal injury upon the defendant. It could be no advantage tollina, except upon one supposition: which was, that the jury might possibly compromise the case as to the punishment, whatever they might believe as to the exact character of the offense proved; which is a supposition that a party has no legal right to induce a court to act upon.
Though the charge asked may well have been given to the jury, we cannot say that the court erred in declining to give it as presented. (O'Connell v. The State, 18 Tex., 343; Stearnes v. The State, 21 Tex., 692; 2 Comst., 193, 202 203)
Judgment affirmed.