Court Opinion

ID: 9642370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:56:07.288998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:46.609337
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
The motion for rehearing merely reiterates the proposition advanced by appellant that Section 5 of Article 1147, Penal Code, limits a conviction thereunder to an assault with a whip or cowhide.
In the Slawson case from which we quoted in the original opinion, the accused was convicted under this provision of the aggravated assault statute, the charge being that he inflicted disgrace upon a female by pulling up her dress and inserting his finger in her vagina.
We also find that this court held that a conviction under *218such subdivision of the article would be sustained where the assault was committed by striking one with the fist. See Keley v. State, 12 Tex. App. 245.
The same holding will be found in Caples v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 394, 155 S.W. 267, wherein it is said:
“The statute reads: ‘When the instrument or means used is such as inflicts disgrace upon the person assaulted, as an assault or battery with a cowhide or whip.’ It is thus seen this clause is broad enough to embrace any instrument with which a whipping may be administered, if done under circumstances which would inflict disgrace.”
We are not impressed with the idea that the statute limits a conviction under Sec. 5, of Art. 1147, supra, only to the use of a whip or cowhide, but it is intended to embrace any kind of an assault that inflicts disgrace upon the person assaulted.
Under the facts herein presented, as well as the law, we think this matter has been properly disposed of.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.