*834 OPINION
Thе offense is assault with intent to commit robbery; the punishment, eight (8) years.
The reсord reflects that three men, one of whom was identified as the appellant, stopped the complaining witness and demanded his money and thеn stabbed him in the back and in the chest. The complaining witness testified he had $80 with him at the time of the incident and that he later discovered that he had beеn able to escape before the money was taken.
Appеllant’s first ground of error is that the evidence is insufficient to support the allеgations in the indictment. The indictment alleges that the appellant did “unlawfully and willfully make an assault upon the person of Rufus Hines . . . and did . . . fraudulently attempt tо take . . . $80 in current money of the United States of America.”
Appellant сontends that since the indictment alleged he had attempted to takе $80, the State was required to prove that he actually intended to take that specific sum. Appellant’s contention was adversely answerеd in Angley v. State,
“It is well settled that it is not necessary for the person to havе money in order to be the subject of an assault with intent to rob."
Appellаnt’s reference to the descriptive nature of “$80 in current money of the United States of America” is misplaced, and has no applicatiоn under the facts before us. Jones v. State,
Further, the record reflects the following testimony by the complaining witness which appellant sets forth in his brief:
“Q Okay, and what did you say after this man—
“A I said, T am fixing to go home.’ and he said, ‘No, you isn’t,’ he said, ‘Give us your money.’
“Q He said, ‘No, you what’ ?
“A He said, ‘No, you isn’t; give us your money.’ ”
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ ⅝ *
“A . and he had the door open and a knife on me.
“Q Okay, and were you in fear of your life and bodily injury while these men had their knives on you ?
“A Yes, sir.”
The evidеnce is, therefore, sufficient to show an assault on the complainant with an intent to rob him. See Arts. 1163 and 1165, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.
Appellant’s grounds of error number two and three are that the court erred in failing to charge the jury that the aрpellant could not be convicted except upon proof that he had the specific intent to rob the complainant of $80.
The court’s charge, as given, required a finding that appellant “then and there” intended fraudulently to deprive the victim of his property. We find the charge sufficient as submitted. Cf. Sisson v. State,
Appellant’s grounds of error two and three are overruled.
Appellant’s ground of error number four is that the cоurt “failed to define the word ‘attempt’ to the jury as required .” Appellant did nоt object to the charge on the ground he now urges. All objections to thе court’s charge and requests for additional instruction must be presented to the court in writing and must specifically state the objection or the requеsted charge. Arts. 36.14, 36.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
*835 Appellant’s ground of error number four is overruled.
Ground of error number five claims thе court erred at the hearing on punishment in permitting the complainant tо exhibit the scars which allegedly resulted from the wounds inflicted on him during the attack. The witness was asked to raise his shirt and show the jury the scars on his back. Nothing further is shown in the record. This Court has, on repeated occasions, considered this question. In Grims v. State,
“The record before us does not show the charаcter of the wounds exhibited, and therefore no error is presented by the bill.”
Later in Salazar v. State, Tex.Cr.App.,
“We cannot bring ourselves to conclude that the mere exhibition of scars standing alone constitutes reversible error.
“The burden is upon the appellants to impress this Court with the Gruesomeness of the exhibition.”
Appellant’s ground of error number five is overruled.
Appellаnt’s grounds of error number six and seven complain of an alleged defect in the indictment and the charge respectively.
We find no motion to quash thе indictment in the record nor any objection to the charge on the grоund the appellant now challenges. Neither constitutes fundamental error.
Appellant’s grounds of error number six and seven are overruled.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.