Court Opinion

ID: 9683588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:32:33.846792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.940147
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring and dissenting in part).
I agree to the affirmance of this conviction, but dissent to the overruling of Blount v. State, supra, in which I participated.
Blount, supra, was distinguished in the case of Gipson v State, Tex.Cr.App., 403 S.W.2d 794. There, the injuries to the elderly female victim were comprised of a mild cerebral concussion, and severe abrasions, scratches and contusions, including one to the kidney, a possible rib fracture, and small areas of lung collapse. We quote from Gipson, supra, as follows:
“Dr. Suehs further stated that, while he did consider Mrs. Wicks’s injuries serious and they could have produced death ‘if they had continued,’ he never did place her on the critical list and he did not think she was going to lose her life.”
Gipson, supra, further distinguished Blount, supra, on the basis of the relative size and weight of the parties, and the fact that the attackers, in Gipson, supra, desisted only when interrupted.1 In the case at bar, the attack was committed by a male upon a female, and the attack ceased when the injured party managed to kick the knife from appellant’s hand, and persuaded him to stop.
The case of Blount v. State, supra, is sufficiently distinguishable from the case at bar and need not be overruled. See also Moseley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 259 S.W.2d 225.
ONION, P. J., joins in this opinion.

. In Blount, supra, the injured party subdued his attacker.