Case Name: CHILDS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-03-07
Citations: 193 S.W. 664
Docket Number: No. 4382
Parties: CHILDS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 193
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
CHILDS v. STATE.
(No. 4382.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 7, 1917.
On Motion for Rehearing, April 4, 1917.)
1. Criminal Law &wkey;?1056(2) — Exceptions — Time — Statute.
Under the statute it is necessary that exceptions be taken to the charge before it is read to the jury and before argument, unless there is fundamental error; so that, where exceptions were first raised in a motion for new trial, and. ' where there was no fundamental error, a conviction would not be reversed.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2668.)
2. Ceiminai, Law i&wkey;829(4) — Trial — Requested Instruction — Given Instruction.
In a prosecution for theft of an automobile, the failure of the charge to inform the jury that, if defendant bought it, which was his account of his possession, or if they had a reasonable doubt of it, they should acquit, was not error, where the court in an approved charge submitted his reasonable account and explanation of his possession.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011.]
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1056(2) — Trial—Exceptions — Time.
Under the statute requiring exceptions to the charge to be taken before it is read to the jury, and before argument unless there is fundamental error, there is no exception in favor of an accused who is not represented by counsel.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig, § 2868.]
Appeal from District Court, Wharton County; Samuel J. Styles, Judge.
Yernon Childs alias Somers was convicted of theft of an automobile, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Heidingsfelders, of Houston, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of theft of an automobile, his punishment being assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
There are no bills of exception in the record. In the motion for a new trial there are some criticisms of the charge. Some of these would have been sufficient to have required a reversal doubtless, if called to the attention of the court before the charge was read to the jury, but this was not done, and nothing said about it until the motion for new trial was filed. These are not of such fundamental character as is recognized under the statute requiring a reversal in the absence of exceptions taken before the charge was read to the jury. To illustrate, appellant was on the stand, and testified to his having been arrested under charge of theft of automobiles at other times and places than that charged in the indictment. There was no limitation of this testimony, but there was no exception to the charge on this matter.
In the motion for new trial the charge is also criticized because it did not inform the jury that, if appellant bought the machine, which was his account of possession' of it, or if they had a reasonable doubt of it, they would acquit. The court gave a charge, which has been approved by this court, in this connection submitting his reasonable account and explanation of his possession. Wheeler v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 353, 30 S. W. 913; Branch's Am. Penal Code, pp. 1334,1335. It was not really necessary to have given it in the other form; that is, charging them that, if they believed he bought it, or had a reasonable doubt of it, they would acquit. The charge given sufficiently presented that matter.
We think the evidence fully justified the verdict, and the judgment will be affirmed.
<&wkey;>For other eases see Same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes