Case Name: FOSTER v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-05-08
Citations: 148 S.W. 583
Docket Number: 
Parties: FOSTER v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 148
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
FOSTER v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 8, 1912.
On Motion for Rehearing, June 5, 1912.)
1. Bail (§ 64 ) — Appeal—Recognizance.
Where appellant was indicted for murder and convicted of aggravated assault, and the recognizance did not comply with the law relating either to a felony or a misdemeanor conviction, an appeal therefrom will be dismissed.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bail, Cent. Dig. § 278; Dee. Dig. § 64. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
~2. Criminal Daw (§ 1090 ) — Appeal—Evidence.
Admissibility of evidence cannot be considered on appeal, in the absence of bills of exception.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
3. Homicide (§ 340 ) — Degrees—Conviction —Instructions—Review.
Where accused was convicted of aggravated assault only, instructions with reference to manslaughter and higher degrees of homicide cannot be reviewed on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 715-717, 720; Dec. Dig. § 340. ]
4. Homicide (§ 300 ) — Instructions — Self-Defense.
Deceased, without provocation, fired a shot that struck defendant. The testimony as to what followed was conflicting. That of the state was sufficient to raise the issue that, after he knew the danger was passed, defendant continued to maltreat deceased, while defendant’s evidence indicated that as soon as he was aware that deceased was no longer armed he desisted. The court charged that the right of self-defense depended on the necessity or apparent necessity to take life in order to prevent death or serious bodily injury,* and declared that, when the necessity or apparent necessity to do so ceased, the right ceased, and followed that with a charge that, if defendant struck additional blows or kicks independent of those made in his lawful self-defense, he could not claim that he acted in self-defense. Held, that such instruction presented the state’s theory only, and, the converse of the proposition having been requested, the court erred in refusing to charge that, if defendant first struck in his lawful self-defense, he was entitled to continue so long as it reasonably appeared to him to be necessary, and, if he ceased as soon as he learned that the necessity had ceased, he should be acquitted, etc.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 614, 616-620, 622-630; Dec. Dig. § 300. ]
5. Homicide (§ 151 ) — Self-Defense — Shooting with Pistoi>-Presumption.
Where deceased shot defendant with a pistol which constituted the commencement of the difficulty, the court erred in failing to apply the law of presumption provided by Pen. Code 1895, art. 676, where the weapon used by deceased was calculated to inflict the resulting injury.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 276-278; Dec. Dig. § 151. ]
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; J. N. Browning, Judge.
Herschel Foster was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
Cooper, Merrill & Lumpkin, of Amarillo, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was indicted, charged with murder, and was convicted of an aggravated assault.
The recognizance is not in compliance with the law relating either to a felony or misdemeanor conviction, and the motion of the Assistant Attorney General to dismiss must be sustained.
Appeal dismissed.