Court Opinion

ID: 9764558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:27:13.945071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:58.188807
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that he was entitled to have the issue of aggravated assault submitted not only as an affirmative defense but as an included offense with that charged in the indictment.
By the so-called indecent fondling statute (Art. 535d, Vernon’s P. C.), the legislature created a new and independent offense out of the general subject of offenses against morals.
The construction to be given to the exception to Sec. 9 of the aggravated assault statute (Art. 1147, P. C., as. amended) is that the legislature intended that Art. 535d, Vernon’s P. 0., *275should control over other statutes in cases of fondling of the sexual parts of a female under the age of fourteen years.
As so construed, the aggravated assault statute has no application under the instant facts.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.