Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1899

Singleton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Decided April 26, 1899 · No. 1624. · Davidson

50 S.W. 951; 40 Tex. Crim. 455; 1899 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 70 (South Western Reporter)

Counsel

Henry T. Chivers, for appellant. — The court erred in its general charge to the jury, in that he had no authority to charge them that they could, under the circumstances, find the defendant guilty of simple assault, when the evidence disclosed the fact that the defendant was an adult male and the injured party a female. The defendant could not be legally convicted of simple assault under the circumstances surrounding this case; because an assault, or an assault and battery, when committed by an adult male upon a female, becomes ipso facto an aggravated assault, and the judgment for simple assault is void and of no force. Willson's Code Crim. Proc., art. 496, subdivs. 5, 6. The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and against the weight of evidence, in that if the defendant was guilty of any offense known to the law he was guilty of an aggravated assault, and the jury could not legally find him guilty of a simple assault. There may be a conviction of simple assault ordinarily, where the defendant is charged with an aggravated assault, but not in a case of this character, where the proof is plain that the defendant is an adult male and the injured party a female. The husband is guilty of an aggravated assault if he chastises his wife. Owen v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 329; Jones v. State, 12 Texas Crim. App., 156. Robt. A. John, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion of the Court

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, under an information charging him with an aggravated assault upon his wife, was convicted of a simple assault, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $5; hence this appeal.

The court charged the jury that, if they entertained a reasonable doubt as to whether the assault was an aggravated or simple assault, they would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and convict him of the inferior offense. A bill of exceptions was reserved to this charge. However, the objections are not stated in the bill, and we are not informed of the reasons for the exceptions. It operated beneficially to appellant, as evidenced by the verdict assessing the minimum fine for simple assault.

If appellant’s idea was that he could not be convicted of a simple assault under an information charging him with aggravated assault upon a female, it is not correct. See Ross v. State, 45 S. W. Rep., 808; Code Crim. Proc., art. 817, subdiv. 9.

The evidence fully sustains the verdict of the jury, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.