Haygood v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
According to the State’s brief, the facts briefly stated are these: The prosecutor ICamegay was in his field picking cotton. Appellant rode up to the fence, called him to the fence; they engaged in a conversation, when the appellant became angered at the prosecutor, drew his pistol, and fired twice at him. and rode off. This theory was controverted by the appellant, and he claimed that he shot in self-defense [or to frighten the injured party]. The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
This is a conviction for assault to murder. A variance between the proof and the allegation in the indictment as to the name of the injured party is relied upon for reversal. The name of the injured party in the indictment is spelled Kamegay; the uncontroverted evidence is tliat he was named Kornegay. We are of of opinion this contention is sound. These names are not the same, nor in our judgment do they come within the rule of idem sonans.
Error is also assigned upon the failure of the court to charge the law with reference to one phase of assault raised b}' the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pearce v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1897
- Blackwell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1894
- Vann v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1901
- Jay v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1900
3Cited by7 opinions
- Uppenkamp v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Short v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Shuffield v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1911
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1921
- Short v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.