Case ID: sw_277/html/0698-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEBSTER v. STATE.
    (No. 9606.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 2, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law t&wkey;l 159(2) — Reviewing tribunal unauthorized to interfere with judgment based on conflicting evidence.
    Where evidence of state supported verdict and judgment of aggravated assault, and that-offered by defense, if accepted by jury, would have justified an acquittal, reviewing tribunal was unauthorized to interfere.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l092'(ll) — Bill complaining of charge not considered on appeal where not approved by trial court.
    Bill complaining of paragraph of court’s charge, which was not approved by trial judge, cannot be considered on'appeal.
    3. Criminal law'<&wkey;IG@f (10) — Bill complaining of court’s charge not considered on appeal, where not stating that objections thereto in writing were filed as required by statute.
    Bill complaining of paragraph of court’s charge, if approved by trial judge, cannot be considered by reviewing tribunal on appeal, though stating that defendant objected to portion of charge at which criticism was directed, where it failed to state that objections thereto in writing were filed as required by Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 658.
    Appeal from District Court, Lamar County; Ben H. Denton, Special Judge.
    John Webster was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Chas. Roach, of Paris, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant was put to trial upon an indictment charging him with assault with intent to murder one T. S. Stites. A conviction for aggravated assault resulted with the punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and 30 days’ confinement in the county jail.

The evidence is conflicting: That of the state supports the verdict and judgment; that offered by the defense, if accepted by the jury, would have justified an acquittal. The jury has determined this matter in favor of the state. It is not that character of case in which this court would he authorized to interfere with the judgment.

The record contains no hills of exception complaining of any procedure during the trial. There is what purports to be a hill complaining of a certain paragraph of the court’s charge, but it is not approved by the trial judge, and therefore cannot be considered. It has no place in the record. If it had been approved it is in no condition to he considered ; while stating that appellant objected to the portion of the charge at which the criticism is directed, it fails to state that objections thereto in writing were filed' as required by article 658, C. C. P. 1925 (article 735, Vernon’s C. C. P.).

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed. 
      <g=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes