State v. Croft
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Limestone. Indictment for an assault with intent to kill. The language of the indictment will be found in the synopsis. The defendant moved to quash on the ground, 1st, That the said indictment does not set forth the manner im which the pistol in said indictment mentioned, was used or attempted to be used. 2nd, That in said indictment the intent to kill is vaguely alleged. Motion sustained.
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
In an indictment for an assault w|th intent to commit an offence, the same particularity is not! required as in an indictment for the commission of the offence, j (Whart. Am. Cr. L. 467, 2nd edit.) Thus : “ In an indictment with 11 intent to murder, it is not necessary to state the instrument, “ or means made use of by the assailant, to effectuate the mur- “ derous intent. The means of effecting the criminal intent, “ or the circumstances evincive of the design with which the “ act was done, are considered to be matters of evidence to the “ Jury, to demonstrate the intent, and not necessary…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Browning v. PumphreyTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- State v. CollyerNevada Supreme Court · 1883
- Lewis v. ColeTexas Supreme Court · 1883
- Morris v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1882
- State v. SheerinMontana Supreme Court · 1892
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.