Case Name: SEAMAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1927-11-02
Citations: 299 S.W. 640
Docket Number: No. 11051
Parties: SEAMAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 299
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
SEAMAN v. STATE.
(No. 11051.)
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 2, 1927.
Clark, Harrell & Starnes, of Greenville, for appellant.
A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
MARTIN, J.
Offense, aggravated assault; punishment, $25 fine.
Complaint is made on this appeal of the refusal of the court to submit several special charges requested by appellant. There is a paper in the .transqript denominated defendant's objections to court's general charge, which is not verified by the court, and which contains only one general objection. In misdemeanor cases, in order to have the question of a refusal of special charges reviewed, there must be an exception to the court's general change, calling the court's attention to the error, and these matters must be presented by a proper bill of exception. The failure of the court to present the defensive theories of appellant should have been pointed out by exception and the entire matter presented by a proper bill of exception. Crispi v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 237 S. W. 263; Sharp v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 542, 247 S. W. 1096; Davenport v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 38, 250 S. W. 179; Thomas v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 131, 256 S. W. 286.
Under these circumstances the record presents nothing for review escept the sufficiency of the evidence, and this we have carefully reviewed, and, believing the same sufficient, the judgment is 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.