Case ID: sw_285/html/1090-01.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

ANDERSON v. STATE.
    (No. 10224.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 19, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied June 25, 1926.)
    Criminal law <®^I038(I).
    ■ Objections to instructions, made for first time in amended motion for new trial, cannot be considered, in view of Code Cr. Proc. 1925, arts. 658, 666.
    Appeal from District Court, Austin County; M. C. Jeffrey, Judge.
    Quillie Anderson was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Johnson,- Matthaei & Thompson, of Bell-ville, for appellant.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellant is under conviction for an aggravated assault, the punishment being six months’ confinement in the county jail and a fine of $100.

, The indictment charged assault with intent to murder. The court submitted aggravated assault only. No written objections were made to the court’s instructions, and no special charges were requested. The first complaint of any alleged error-in -the instructions to the jury is found in the amended motion for new trial.

The amended Practice Act, relating to the charge and objections thereto, enacted in 1913 and now' incorporated in articles 658 and 666, C. C. P. (1925), requires objections to the charge to b,e in writing filed at the time of trial. Since this law became effective, it has been the uniform holding of this court that objections to instructions made for the first time in motion for new trial could not be considered. Bargas v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 217, 216 S. W. 172; Grissom v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 465, 222 S. W. 237; Tamaya v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 190, 230 S. W. 146; Boaz v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. R. 515, 231 S. W. 790. For conation of many authorities on the question see notes 64 and 65, page 526, Vernon’s 1916, Cr. St. vol. 2.

The evidence supports the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.