Court Opinion

ID: 9681193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:45:40.653678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.585235
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
MORRISON, Judge
It is again urged that the indictment is duplicitous in that it *583also charged burglary. An examination of Article 1393, V.A.P.C., will reveal that in order to charge the offense denounced by said article it is necessary to allege that the firearm was discharged into the house with the intent to injure a person therein situated. This essential allegation does not apear in the indictment before us, and it therefore does not charge burglary.
As to appellant’s contention that the jury should have been charged on the law of aggravated and simple assault, we call attention to our holding in Barton and Dutton v. State, 162 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 282 S.W. 2d 237, that there was no necessity of charging on aggravated assault unless there was some doubt that the greater offense of castration had been committed.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this case originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.