Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 Tex. Crim. 372

120 S.W 422

Barr v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 28, 1909

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1909-04-28

<p>1. —Assault to Murder—Charge of Court—Malice.</p> <p>Where upon trial for assault with intent to murder the court in defining malice followed a charge which has been frequently approved by this court, there was no error.</p> <p>2. —Same—Charge of Court—Reasonable Doubt—Burden of Proof.</p> <p>Upon trial for assault to murder, the court correctly charged that if the jury believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant on or about the time charged in the indictment, etc., with a deadly weapon and with malice aforethought did assault the party injured with the intent then and there to kill and murder him, etc., and that said assault was not made under the immediate influence of sudden passion produced by an adequate cause as explained in the charge thereafter, and not in defense of defendant against an unlawful attack producii e a reasonable expectation or fear of death or serious bodily injury, to find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to murder. Overruling Bagley v. State, 103 S. W. Rep., 874.</p> <p>3. —Same—Charge of Court—Excluded Testimony.</p> <p>Where upon trial for assault to murder, certain testimony was excluded with reference to defendant’s credibility, there was no error in the court’s failure to charge the jury not to consider said testimony.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1916

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-04-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 ON REHEARING.

¶2 June 9, 1909.

BROOKS, Judge.

¶3 This case was affirmed on a previous day of this term, and now comes before us on motion for rehearing.

¶4 Appellant complains that the court erred in holding that the following charge of the court is correct: “If from the evidence you are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, John Barr, on or about the time charged in the indictment, in the county of Mc-Lennan and State of Texas, with a deadly weapon, and with malice aforethought, did assault the said Gr. W. Tilley, with intent then and there to kill and murder him, and if you are further satisfied by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that said assault was not made under the immediate influence of sudden passion, produced by an adequate cause, as the same is hereinafter explained to you, and not in defense of himself against an unlawful attack producing a reasonable expectation or fear of death or serious bodily injury, then you will find the defendant guilty of an assault with intent to murder, and so say by your verdict.” To support appellant’s contention he cites us to the case of Bagley v. State, 103 S. W. Rep., 874. The Bagley case is practically in point in favor of appellant’s contention, but after a careful consideration of the charge, in the light of said authority, we are constrained to believe that the authority is incorrect, and that the charge of the court in this case was a proper presentation of the law applicable to the facts of this case. So believing, the Bagley case is hereby overruled.

¶5 Appellant’s motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.

¶6 Overruled.

/56/texcrim/372 · .json · Public domain