James Franklin SADLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 35137.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 2, 1963.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1963.
364 S.W.2d 234
As a witness in his own behalf, appellant denied having struck the child on September 11th and testified, in substance, that her injuries were caused from falling from the drainboard to the floor while he was out of the room and had gone to the front door.
Dr. Kubala testified that in his opinion the injuries he found on the child‘s body were not compatible with her falling off the drainboard but were compatible with a child‘s being beaten about the face, head, and body by a man the size of appellant, with his fists, and knocking the child‘s head into a sharp-cornered object that cut the back of the head.
Appellant further repudiated that portion of his confession in which he admitted striking the child, and testified that the reason he made such statement was to prevent charges being filed against the child‘s mother.
Officer Orlando, to whom the confession was made, denied that he or anyone else threatened appellant with any harm or that he threatened to file charges against the child‘s mother.
The record presents no objections to the court‘s charge, nor does it contain any formal bills of exception, and no brief has been filed on behalf of appellant.
We have examined the informal bills of exception appearing in the statement of facts and find no reversible error therein.
The admission in evidence of the four photographs of the minor child, to which appellant objected on the ground that they were highly inflammatory, were hearsay, and did not truly depict the child‘s appearance and would inflame the minds of the jury, does not present error. The photographs, except for the small bandage, were shown to truly portray the appearance of the child when first admitted to the hospital. The photographs showing the condition of the child‘s body at that time could shed light on and aid the jury in passing upon the issue raised by appellant‘s testimony as well as on the issue of malice and intent to kill. Gibson v. State, 153 Tex. Cr.R. 582, 223 S.W.2d 625; Ray v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 12, 266 S.W.2d 124; Alcorta v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 294 S.W.2d 112; Cordero v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 160, 297 S.W.2d 174; Wilkerson v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 342 S.W.2d 431; and Cantrell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 242 S.W.2d 387.
The evidence, viewed in the light of appellant‘s confession, the tender years of the child, and injuries inflicted, is sufficient to sustain the jury‘s verdict finding appellant guilty of assault with intent to murder with malice aforethought. See Hignett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 341 S.W.2d 166.
The judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.