Maul v. State
Texas Supreme Court
' Appeal from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Bell. The defendant chose to be tried under the penal code on the charge, without qualification as to the minor offences included within it. The court charged the jury as to the several offences of assault with intent to murder, and an aggravated assault, and the punishment of each under the Code. The defendant did not except to' the charge, nor ask any to be given in respect to the penalty.
Read the full summary
' Appeal from Fayette. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Bell. The defendant chose to be tried under the penal code on the charge, without qualification as to the minor offences included within it. The court charged the jury as to the several offences of assault with intent to murder, and an aggravated assault, and the punishment of each under the Code. The defendant did not except to' the charge, nor ask any to be given in respect to the penalty. All- the other facts material to be stated, appear from the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Roberts J.
This is an indictment for an assault with intent to murder. The offence is charged and proved to have been committed before the Code went into operation, and the trial was afterwards. Defendant chose to be tried under the Code, and was found guilty of an aggravated assault, and his punishment was fixed by the jury at a fine of five hundred dollars, and confinement in the county jail one year. This' punishment was permissible for an aggravated ■ assault under the Code, but was greater than that prescribed for that offence by the law previously. The main error complained of was in the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ex Parte AlegriaCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1971
- Ex parte HuntCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1890
- Kirk v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1966
- Gibbs v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Kirk v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.