Case ID: sw2d_199/html/0656-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BEAUCHAMP, Judge. DAVIDSON, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BELL v. STATE.
    No. 23534.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 15, 1947.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1947.
    
      No appearance for appellant.
    Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for murder without malice with a punishment of four years in the penitentiary. The facts of the case are much the same as in the former trial (see Bell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 189 S.W.2d 1022) in which the sentence was two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without-bills of exception. The charge of the court is quite lengthy, but we believe that when considered in its entirety it fairly presents the law on all issues, raised by the testimony. Lengthy exceptions to the court’s charge were filed, but they are of such general nature that they do not advise us with sufficient clarity the grounds for such general exceptions. No brief has been filed in behalf of the appellant and we are unable to determine with certainty the complaint which he may have in mind. We are furnished with no authorities in support of the exceptions.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

In connection with his motion for rehearing, appellant presents a-brief and .argument in which he insists that his exception and objection to the charge on self-defense as being too restrictive should have been sustained.

, Apparently, as a result of the exception ; mentioned, the trial court submitted self-defense not only from the standpoint of a deadly'attack on the part of the deceased, but also from a lesser attack, as prescribed in Article 1224, P.C.

We are unable to agree with appellant that his right of self-defense was not fully presented by the trial court in his charge.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court