Nat. Outlaw v. State

Citations

• 35 Tex. 481

Syllabus

<p>1. On a trial for an assault with intent to commit a rape, the defendant asked the court below to charge the jury, that if, from the testimony, they believed the accused assaulted the lady with an intent to have an improper connection with her, but not with intent to force her to it, by force, threats or fraud, and without her consent, then he was pot guilty of assault with intent to commit rape, but was guilty of an aggravated assault. Held, that however correct in the abstract this charge might be, its refusal was justified not only by the fact that the court had already given to the jury the entire law applicable to the case, but also because the testimony proved .that the accused entered the lady’s house without authority, and seized her by the neck, with expressions of his carnal desire and purpose, and therefore the instruction asked had no applicability, and might have misled the jury.</p> <p>2. Drunkenness furnishes neither an excuse nor a palliation for crime.</p>