Case ID: sw2d_31/html/0825-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DODD v. STATE.
    No. 13512.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 18, 1930.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1930.
    Reed & Edwards, of Clarksville, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Canton, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in-the penitentiary.

The record contains only one-bill of exceptions. It is to be regretted that in same those matters stated as grounds of objection, were in no way verified as true by any certificate or statement of the trial court; nor does the bill show any facts from which we can be informed sufficiently that the testimony objected to was incompetent. Such bills have uniformly been held insufficient.

We have carefully examined the evidence, and deem it to be sufficient. Appellant admitted on the trial that he went with another young man on the night in question to the garage of prosecuting witness, and that he sat in a car not far away while the other young man entered said building for the purpose of stealing batteries. The defensive testimony was chiefly that the door of the garage was not closed, but the owner testified positively to the fact that it was closed. The jury have resolved these fáct issues against appellant, and we are not in a position to say the testimony was not sufficient.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

It is urged on motion for rehearing that, in failing in his charge to limit the purpose for which certain evidence was admitted, the court committed error for which the judgment should be reversed, although no objection for such omission was presented at the time of trial. Appellant cites several authorities which apparently support his position, but it will be found that all of them are cases which were decided before 1913, at which time the present law was passed requiring objections to the charge to be in writing and presented before the' charge is read to the jury. Articles 65S and 666, O. O. P. See Lowe v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 226 S.W. 674, and authorities therein cited; Lane v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 367, 12 S.W. (2d) 1027; Texas Jurisprudence, vol. 4, § 137. Th'e motion for rehearing is overruled.

HAWKINS, J., absent.