The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, ten (10) years.
Appellant's principal ground of error relates to the failure of the trial court to quash the indictment against the appellant. It is based upon the alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans on the grand juries in Aransas County. Appellant admits in his brief that three of the twelve grand jurors who returned the indictment against him were Mexican-Americans. He also contends that only eleven persons with Spanish surnames have served upon the grand juries in Aransas County since 1949, though some have served more than once.
Strong reliance is had upon Muniz v. Beto, 434 F.2d 697 (5 Cir. 1970). The basic fact of Muniz, as we see it, is that there were no persons with Spanish surnames on the jury commission which selected the grand jury, and there were no
Appellant's second ground of error is that the trial court erred in failing to grant his requested charge that if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to appellant's intent to rob, they should acquit him of the offense of robbery and find him guilty of simple assault.
We find the charge given more favorable to appellant than the one requested because it instructed them that if they had a reasonable doubt as to his intent they should acquit appellant and find him not guilty.
His third ground of error relates to his requested Charge #2 which read:
The Court instructed the jury as follows:
We have concluded that the charge given adequately protected appellant's rights.
The judgment is affirmed.