Case Name: KERR v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1935-04-17
Citations: 82 S.W.2d 670
Docket Number: No. 17486
Parties: KERR v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 82
Pages: 670–672

Head Matter:
KERR v. STATE.
No. 17486.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 17, 1935.
Rehearing Denied May 29, 1935.
Roy E. Estes, of Granbury, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
KRUEGER, Judge.
The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of aggravated assault and battery, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $250 and confinement in the county jail for a period of six months.
The prosecutrix was the divorced wife of the appellant. She testified that the appellant made an unprovoked and unjustified assault upon her by striking her'with his fist, a rock, and the stock of an air gun. The appellant denied the charge, and justified his action and conduct under the law of self-defense. He contended that she made an assault upon him with a pistol, that he knocked her down, took the pistol away from her, and threw it over into the peach orchard.
The appellant made some written obj ections to the court's main charge which the court declined to consider, but he did not show his disapproval of the court's action in the way of an exception. Unless the defendant excepts to the court's ruling, we must assume that he was satisfied; otherwise he would have taken an exception to the court's action. In the absence of a bill of exception, this court cannot review the action of the trial court. See Sandlin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 69 S.W. (2d) 407.
It appears from the record that the appellant prepared certain special charges which the court declined to submit to the jury, but the appellant did not register his disapproval of the court's action by reserving an exception. Therefore the same cannot be considered by this court, as they do not constitute a bill of exception. See Simpson v. State, 99 Tex. Cr. R. 88, 267 S. W. 1116; Thomas v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 288, 273 S. W. 571; Bailey v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 275 S. W. 1014.
We have carefully examined the testimony and believe that the evidence offered by the state, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
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.