Case ID: tex-crim_150/html/0106-01.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

Arthur Lee Bell v. The State.
    No. 23534.
    Delivered January 15, 1947.
    Rehearing Denied February 26, 1947.
    
      Polk Shelton, of Austin, attorney for appellant.
    
      Ernest S. Goens, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State
   BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for murder without malic* 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, 189 S. W. (2d) 1022) in which the sentence was twc years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception. The charg* of the court is quite lengthy, but we believe that when- considere* in its entirety it fairly presents the law on all issues raised b3 the testimony. Lengthy exceptions to the court’s charge were filed, but they are of such general nature that they do no' advise us with sufficient clarity the grounds for such genera exceptions. No brief has been filed in behalf of the appellant an* we are unable to determine with certainty the complaint whicl he may have in mind. We are furnished with no authorities ii support of the exceptions.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ON APPELLANT’S 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.

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.