Case Name: Romaldo Munoz v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-10-20
Citations: 77 Tex. Crim. 545
Docket Number: No. 3710
Parties: Romaldo Munoz v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
Romaldo Munoz v. The State.
No. 3710.
Decided October 20, 1915.
1. —Murder—Bill of Exceptions—Motion for New Trial.
In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a complaint to the introduction of testimony, made in a motion for new trial, can not be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Weight of Evidence.
Where, in the beginning of the court’s charge, be informed the jury that defendant stands charged by indictment with the offense of the murder of S. G., alleged to have been committed by him, this is not a charge on the weight of the evidence.
3. —Same—Charge of Court—Defendant’s Failure to Testify.
Where defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that his failure to testify should not be taken as a circumstance against him, to which the court conformed, there was no error.
Appeal from the District Court of Atascosa. Tried below before the Hon. F. G. Chambliss.
Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twenty-five years confinement in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of murder, and his punishment assessed at twenty-five. years confinement in the State penitentiary.
As there was no exception reserved to the introduction of the testimony of the witness John Slomsehinskie the complaint in regard to same, in the motion for new trial, does not present the matter in a way we can review the action of the court.
In the beginning paragraph of the charge of the court he informed the jury that "appellant stands charged by indictment with the offense of the murder of Sapriano Gonzales alleged to have been committed by him." This does not suggest to the jury that in the opinion of the court appellant was guilty, as contended in the complaint, of the charge.
As appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that his failure to testify should not be taken as a circumstance against him, certainly the court so doing presents no error.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.