¶1 In my opinion the" exhibition of the pocketknife was in fact and in law the exhibition of a dangerous weapon. However, I concur in the reversal on account of the refusal of said special charge.
81 Tex. Crim. 43
193 S.W 148
Borders v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided March 14, 1917
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1917-03-14
<p>Aggravated Assault — Intent to Alarm — Charge of Court.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of aggravated assault and a conviction of simple assault, the evidence showed on the part of the defense that defendant simply got out his knife, about ten steps from the party who claimed to have been assaulted, and held it down by his side simply to be used in self-defense, the court should have submitted a requested charge that, to constitute an assault by alarming a person, the thing done must first be unlawful and must be done in an angry or threatening manner and with intent to alarm, and a failure to do so is reversible error. Following Trimble v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 439. Distinguishing Brister v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 505.</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1943
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1917-03-14
View the full empirical analysis of this case →