Case Name: CRAVEN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 247 S.W. 515
Docket Number: No. 7450
Parties: CRAVEN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 247
Pages: 515–517

Head Matter:
CRAVEN v. STATE.
(No. 7450.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 29, 1922.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1923.)
I.Criminal law d&wkey; 1056(1), 1090(14) — Refusal of special charge not reviewable1, where neither exception nor bill of exceptions appears.
Where there is no excepfion certified by the judge, on or as part of the special charge, to the refusal to give such special charge, and no bill of exceptions complains of such refusal, any error therein is not preserved for review.
2. Homicde <&wkey;294(I) — Insanity instruction held sufficient.
Instruction on issue of insanity held to sufficiently present issue of insanity as a defense in prosecution for manslaughter.
On Rehearing.
3. Homicide <&wkey;>l51 (2) — Presumption of sanity must be overcome by preponderance of evidence.
Under Pen. Code 1911, art. 39, forbidding punishment of one for acts done while insane, the presumption of sanity obtains, and, in a prosecution for manslaughter, must be overcome by a preponderance of evidence.
4. Homicide <⅞=»80 — Feeble-mindedness no defense, if accused had capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.
Where insanity is urged in defense of prosecution for manslaughter, the test is whether the accused had the capacity to distinguish between the right and wróng of the particular act charged, and mere weakness of mind will not excuse the offense.
5. Homicide <®=»294(1) — Evidence of weak-mindedness presents no issue of insanity.
In a prosecution for manslaughter, where the testimony showed defendant to be weak-minded, illiterate, and ignorant, but there was no direct evidence of insanity, the court properly refused to instruct on the issue of insanity.
Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Chas. L. Brachfield, Judge. .
Herbert Craven was convicted of mam slaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed, and motion for rehearing overruled.
D. M. Short & Sons, of Center, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Shelby county of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at 5 years in the penitentiary.
The indictment was for the murder of Bennie or Benie Young. From the stenographic report of the testimony, it appears that the witnesses spoke of deceased as Benny Young.One witness testified that deceased told him his name was Bennett Young, The name of the injured party, as alleged in the indictment, and that attributed to him by the witnesses, seems idem sonans.
Our inference from the record in its present condition would be that special charges Nos. 2 and 3 were given by the trial court. Special charge No. 4 appears to have been refused, but there is nothing on the bill as same appears in the record to indicate that such' refusal was objectionable to the appellant, or that he reserved any exception to such action of the court below; nor does there appear any'bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of such charge. This court holds that, where there is nothing in the record either on or, a part of the special charge and certified to by the court below, or in a separate bill of exceptions setting forth that an exception was taken to the refusal of the special charge, this court will have nothing before it for consideration in regard thereto. Nichols v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 238 S. W. 232; Fry v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 73, 215 S. W. 560; Reese v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 249 S. W.-, opinion Nov. 29, 1922.
Complaint is made of the maimer in which the issue of insanity was presented. We have examined the statement of facts and would be in doubt as to there being testimony sufficient to raise the issue, but the trial court seemed to think it necessary and therefore gave special charge No. 2, prepared by the appellant's counsel, and which seems to us a sufficient presentation of the law applicable to this issue. '
. Finding nothing in the record to call for a reversal, the judgment wilhbe affirmed.
tgsjFnr other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes