Case Name: G. P. Gerard v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-01-04
Citations: 91 Tex. Crim. 374
Docket Number: No. 6446
Parties: G. P. Gerard v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 374–377

Head Matter:
G. P. Gerard v. The State.
No. 6446.
Decided January 4, 1922.
Rehearing Denied March 29, 1922.
1. —Robbery—Punishment—Statutes Construed—Verdict.
Where, upon trial of robbery, the indictment alleged that the defendant had been theretofore convicted for a, like offense, and the jury found him guilty of the instant robbery, and also found that he had theretofore been found guilty of a former robbery, and not being instructed to fix the punishment did not fix the same, and the court entered thereon the judgment fixing the punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for life, under article 1619, P. C., there was no reversible error, the punishment being absolutely fixed by law. Following Murray v. State, 1 Texas Grim. App., 430, and other cases.
2. —Same—Insanity—Requested Charge—Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon trial of robbery, the record contained on appeal what purports to be a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to submit the issue of insanity, but it appeared from the record also that no exceptions were taken at the time in writing, to the court’s failure to charge on the issue of insanity, and no special charge was requested, this court cannot review the matter.
3. —Same—Insanity—Remedy.
If there. really be a question as to insanity, appellant is not without remedy under the statute.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Insanity—Charge of Court—Practice on Appeal.
Where appellant contended in his motion for rehearing that it was incumbent upon the trial court to embrace the issue of insanity in his charge to the jury, although there was no request that he do so, and there was no exception to the charge because of his failure to do so, and counsel referred to former precedent: Held, that the decisions of this court must necessarily be read in the light of the statutes in force at the time of the trial to which the decision relates, and under the present statutes this court has no right to review a supposed error in the trial court in omitting to submit to the jury the issue of insanity when no complaint was made of the failure to do so at the time of the trial, and the motion for rehearing must be overruled
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Honorable C. W. Robinson.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
The opinion states the case. .
Geo. W. Dixon, for appellant.
Cited cases in opinion.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
—Conviction is for robbery. Penalty imprisonment for life.
Appellant was indicted for robbery by assault of J. E. Lyon on February 5, 1921. It was also properly alleged and proven that he had theretofore in November, 1915, been convicted for a like offense, to-wit: the robbery by assault of Henry Burrisk. Under proper instructions the jury found him guilty of the Lyon's robbery, and also found that he had theretofore been found guilty of the Burrisk robbery. The jury fixed no punishment, and were not instructed as to any. Upon the verdict being returned the court entered judgment, fixing the punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for life. Article 1327, P. C., fixes the punishment for robbery by assault (not with a firearm) at confinement in the penitentiary for life, or for a term of years not less than five. Article 1619, P. C., provides: "If it be shown, on the trial of a felony less than capital, that the defendant has been before convicted of the same offense, or one of the same nature, the punishment on such second or other subsequent conviction shall be the highest which is affixed to the commission of such offenses in ordinary cases." Article 770, C. C. P., is with reference to verdicts, and the province of the jury; the last sentence in the article being: "They (the jury) shall assess the punishment in all cases where the same is not absolutely fixed by law to some particular penalty." When under the law the punishment for murder in the first degree was death absolutely, a verdict finding accused guilty of that offense was sufficient, and the court fixed the penalty in the judgment. Murray v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App. 430; Boothe v. State, 4 Texas Ct. App. 212; O 'Connor v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep. 267. Upon the findings in the instant case the punishment was "absolutely fixed by law." No discretion was left the jury in the matter. The verdict was sufficient and the judgment properly entered thereon.
We find in the record what purports to be a bill of exceptions to the refusal of the court to submit the issue of insanity. The trial judge refused the bill with.the following notation: "There being no evidence to raise the issue of insanity in this case this bill is refused." The case was tried on March 29th, 1921. The bill was not filed until April 15th, 1921, and is not sufficient to present an exception taken at the time of the trial. No objections or exceptions in writing were taken to the charge for failure to submit the issue of insanity as required by Article 735 C. C. P. before the charge was read to the jury, and no special charge was requested on the subject. This being the condition of the record we are without authority to review the question sought to be raised.
If there really be a question as to accused's sanity he is not without remedy. See Art. 39 P. C., and Arts. 1017-1030 C. C. P.
No errors appearing from the record of which we can take cognizance, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.