Court Opinion

ID: 9764611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:32:37.334265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:58.687756
License: Public Domain

on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that the facts fail to evidence an intent to kill. This contention is made chiefly upon the theory that appellant could easily have killed the injured party by shooting him with the pistol, which he did not do.
Of course the fact that one is in position to kill another and does not do so is a strong circumstance tending to show a lack of intent to kill, but where the instrument with which the assault is committed is a deadly weapon per se, as here, the intent to kill may be inferred. Trimble v. State, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 596, 190 S. W. 2d 123; Kincaid v. State, 150 Tex. Cr. R. 45, 198 S. W. 2d 899.
We are constrained to conclude that under the facts presented the jury was authorized to find that appellant intended to kill the injured party and that the conviction was warranted by such facts.
The other questions presented have been re-examined, and we remain convinced that a correct conclusion was reached originally.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.