Case Name: STEGALL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-16
Citations: 252 S.W. 513
Docket Number: No. 7651
Parties: STEGALL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 252
Pages: 513–515

Head Matter:
STEGALL v. STATE.
(No. 7651.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 16, 1923.
Rehearing Denied June 20, 1923.)
1. Homicide <@=>310'(4) — Refusing to submit law of simple assault held not error.
In trial for assault to murder, where the state’s theory was that accused struck the assaulted party on the head with an iron bar, and it was accused’s theory that he struck with a piece of one by four plank, and there was no contention but that serious bodily injury was inflicted, held that, in the absence of any testimony showing that the blows were inflicted by a weapon not capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the law of simple assault.
On Motion for .Rehearing.
2. Homicide @=>166(3) — In assault case growing out of dispute over bill, evidence that accused owed assaulted party at time of trial held admissible.
In trial for assault to murder, there being evidence that the cause of the assault was accused’s displeasure over refusal of credit to accused’s son by the assaulted party, a storekeeper, allowing the storekeeper to testify that accused still owed him at the time of the trial was not error; the attitude of all parties relative to the son’s purchase being admissible to show accused’s motive.
Appeal from District Court, Caldwell County ; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.
C. C. Stegall was convicted of aggravated assault, and appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Richards, of Lockhart, and R. M. Lyles, of Groesbeek, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Caldwell county of an aggravated assault, and his punishment fixed at 15 months in the county jail.
. Appellant was on trial for assault to murder. Without dispute it is made to appear that about the 17th of July, 1922, appellant struck Willis Branyon. the alleged injured party, on the head three blows; two of same causing fractures to Mr. Branyon's skull. The doctors who examined the wounds and treated Mr. Branyon said the wounds might easily have resulted in death. The parties who were present at the time of the difficulty said Branyon was rendered unconscious by the blows.
There is hut one bill of exceptions in the record, same presenting appellant's exception to a question propounded by the state to Mr. Branyon. Said question was as follows: "Does the defendant still owe you anything?" The objection was based on the proposition that the answer to said question would be calculated to lead the jury to believe that appellant was dishonest and would not pay his debts, and had not paid them, and that such answer could shed no light on any issue involved in'this case. Said bill is qualified, by the trial court by a statement calling attention to the fact that appellant first went into the proposition of an indebtedness to Mr. Branyon, and that because of same Mr. Bran-yon had refused to give one of appellant's sons credit, a short time before this difficulty, and that out of what occurred between appellant's said son and Mr. Branyon at that time arose the dispute which caused the instant trouble. The court further in said qualification states that the only objection made at the time the testimony was offered was that it was immaterial, irrelevant, and prejudicial, and that the defendant having gone into the matter of said indebtedness, he felt that the state was entitled to the facts relative thereto. We are not inclined to think the action of the trial court in this regard erroneous.
The state's theory of the occurrence was that appellant struck Branyon on the head with a bar of iron which was found at the scene of the difficulty by witnesses who so testified. The theory of the appellant was that he struck Branyon on the head with a piece of one by four plank about two feet long and two or three inches wide. There would seem no contention but that serious bodily injury was inflicted upon Mr. Branyon, under the-testimony of the doctors. There are some special charges shown in the record, many of which relate to assault to murder and contain instructions that under certain circumstances appellant could not be convicted of more than aggravated assault. In view of the conviction for such assault, a consideration of said charges is pretermitted.
In the absence of any testimony showing that the blows were inflicted by a weapon not capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the law of simple assault.
Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.