Case Name: Baltazan Solis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-02-17
Citations: 76 Tex. Crim. 230
Docket Number: No. 3390
Parties: Baltazan Solis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 230–233

Head Matter:
Baltazan Solis v. The State.
No. 3390.
Decided February 17, 1915.
1. —Assault to Murder—Statement of Fact—Bills of Exception.
Where it was shown that it was not due to the negligence of appellant that his bills of exception and statement of fact were not filed in time, the same will be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—Aggravated Assault—Charge of Court—Adequate Cause.
Where, upon trial of assault to murder, the evidence showed that the party injured inflicted a blow upon defendant which caused pain, this was statutory adequate cause, and the court should have so instructed the jury in his charge limiting defendant’s right of self-defense in the event there was no intention to kill. Following Halsford v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 42, and other cases.
3. —Same—Provoking Difficulty—Rule Stated.
If one provokes the difficulty or produces the occasion in order to have • a pretext for killing, or with intent of killing his adversary or doing him great bodily harm, the killing would be murder, no matter to what extremity he may have been reduced in the combat.
4. —Same—Rule Stated—Intent to Kill.
If the defendant provoked the difficulty with no intent to kill or inflict serious bodily injury and thereby brought about the necessity of killing the deceased to save his own life or prevent serious bodily injury being inflicted on him by deceased, it would not be murder, but manslaughter.
5. —Same—Evidence—General Reputation.
Where defendant had not attacked the reputation of the prosecuting witness, it was error to permit the State to introduce evidence that the reputation of said witness as a peaceable law-abiding citizen was good. Following Graves v. State, 14 Texas Crim. App., 113, and other cases.
6. —Same—Simple Assault—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of assault to murder, the evidence did not raise the issue of simple assault, there was no error in the court’s failure to charge thereon.
Appeal from the District Court of Aransas. Tried below before the Hon. F. G. Chambliss.
Appeal from a conviction of assault to murder; penalty, two years - imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
E. Gordon Gibson, for appellant.
On question of reputation of prosecuting witness: Moore v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 54, and cases cited in opinion.
On question of simple assault: Hudson v. State, 40 Texas, 12.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of assault to murder and his punishment was assessed by the jury at two years confinement in the State penitentiary.
The Assistant Attorney General makes a motion to strike out the statement of facts and bills of exception accompanying the record.' As they were not filed within the time permitted under the law, the motion must be sustained. And without a statement of facts and bills of exception there is no ground in the motion for new trial we can review.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.