Case Name: John Vann v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1901-04-25
Citations: 43 Tex. Crim. 244
Docket Number: No. 2215
Parties: John Vann v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 244–248

Head Matter:
John Vann v. The State.
No. 2215.
Decided April 25, 1901.
Motion for Rehearing Decided June 22, 1901.
1. —Aggravated Assault—Information.
An information for aggravated assault which charged that the assault was made with a gun, a deadly weapon, is sufficient without stating how the gun was a deadly weapon, or how used, or that the gun was discharged.
2. —Same—Requested Instructions.
On a trial for aggravated assault, the court properly refused requested instructions not authorized hy the evidence.
3. —Same—Charge of Court.
On a trial for aggravated assault, where the court charged the jury that if they found that defendant pointed a gun at the prosecutor, “and if you further find that defendant pointed said gun at the prosecutor with the intention to injure or alarm the said prosecutor; and if you further find that the said gun was a deadly weapon, then you will find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment and fix his punishment as above defined for aggravated assault.” Held, the charge was correct, and the court did not err in giving it. But see infra, paragraph 6.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
4. —Defense of Property.
It is provided by statute, Code of Criminal Procedure, article 593, subdivision 4, that, “violence used to the person does not amount to assault and battery in preventing or interrupting an intrusion upon the lawful possession of property,” and one in the lawful possession of property has the right, as against a trespasser, to arm himself for his protection, go to the place where the trespass is being committed, request the trespasser to leave and, if he refuses to go, can insist upon and use all reasonable means to compel him to leave, using no more force than is reasonably necessary, and if attacked by the trespasser he can oppose force with force.
5. —Same—Charge of Court.
On a trial for aggravated assault, where it appeared that the difficulty occurred concerning the cutting of timber upon land of which defendant had been in possession for thirty years, and upon defendant’s demanding of prosecutor that he desist from cutting said timber, the prosecutor attacked him with an ax; Held, that the court should have charged the jury, in effect, that defendant had a right, in law, to prevent any unlawful intrusion on his property; and that if the violence used by defendant to prevent the same was no more than was reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose, they should acquit, and if he was attacked by the trespasser he had a perfect right to defend himself against such attack.
6. —Aggravated Assault—Charge of Court.
On a trial for aggravated assault, where it appeared that the assault was either justifiable in self defense or was an assault made with a deadly weapon with intent to injure, a charge that if the weapon was used to “alarm” the prosecutor it would be an aggravated assault, is erroneous. Where the weapon is a dangerous and not a deadly one, and is used merely to frighten or alarm another, the offense is a simple assault.
Appeal from the County Court of Travis. Tried below before Hon. A. S. Walker, County Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of aggravated assault; penalty, a fine of $25.
The essential facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of Judge Henderson on the motion for rehearing.
John Dowell, for appellant.
Rob’t A. John, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
BROOKS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault and fined $35.
Appellant made a motion to quash the information. The charging part thereof is as follows: "That one John Vann did then and there unlawfully and willfully in and upon J. W. Rutledge, with a gun, the same then and there being a deadly weapon, did then and there commit an aggravated assault," etc.; the objection to the information being that same fails to state how said gun was a deadly weapon, or how used, and the same fails to state that said gun was discharged. The information is in proper form, and is not subject to the criticism urged by appellant.
Appellant complains that the court erred in failing to give the following charge requested by him: "If you believe from the evidence that defendant was in possession of the land on which complainant, Rutledge, was attempting to cut the timber, then defendant would have the right, in law, to prevent an unlawful intrusion on his property, and the use of any violence to prevent such would not be an assault."
We do not think the court erred in refusing to give this charge, since there is no evidence in the record authorizing the same. What we have said in reference to special charge number 1, disposes of special charges numbers 3 and 3 requested by appellant.
Appellant urges various objections to the charge of the court, and insists that the court erred in refusing to give other special charges. Without reviewing them seriatim, we deem it only necessary to say that the charge of the court is correct, and the special charges asked by appellant, so far as applicable, were given in the main charge of the court. However, we note that appellant strenuously insists that the following portion of the court's charge is erroneous: "If you find from the evidence that John Vann pointed a gun at John Rutledge, and if you further find that said Vann pointed said gun at said Rutledge with the intention to injure or alarm said Rutledge, and if you further find that the said gun was a deadly weapon, then you will find defendant guilty as charged in the information, and fix his punishment as above defined for aggravated assault." The charge quoted is the law, and the court did not err in giving the same. The question involved in this matter was passed upon by us in Tollett v. State, 55 Southwestern Reporter, 335. We do not think the court erred as stated in giving this charge. Ho error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.