Bramlette v. State

Citations

• 21 Tex. Ct. App. 611
• 2 S.W. 765
• 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 199

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—Witness—Evidence.—An exception to the rule that the husband and wife are incompetent to testify against each other, is in the case of a criminal prosecution of the one for an offense committed against the other. Being competent to testify in such case, it is not optional with such a witness to testify or not, as he or she may elect, but, if presented as a witness for the State, he or she may be compelled to give evidence for the State. See the opinion in extenso on the subject.</p> <p>3. Same—Malice.—Charge oe the Court defining malice in substantial accord with No. 708 of Willson’s Criminal Forms is sufficient.</p> <p>3. Same.—The trial court is not authorized to instruct the jury upon issues not raised by the evidence. See the statement of the ease for evidence upon a trial for assault with intent to murder, held not to raise the issues of simple or aggravated assault and battery, wherefore the omission of the trial court to charge upon those issues was not error.</p> <p>4. Same—Intoxication.—The general charge of the court having sufficiently instructed the jury with regard to the specific intent essential to the commission of the crime, it became the duty of the defendant to request additional charges, if he desired them, with regard to the effect of drunkenness upon his mental condition, or intent at the time of the assault.</p> <p>5. Same.—Reasonable Doubt should be charged in the exact language of the statute.</p>