Case Name: MANLEY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-06
Citations: 254 S.W. 1107
Docket Number: No. 7432
Parties: MANLEY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 1107–1108

Head Matter:
MANLEY v. STATE.
(No. 7432.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 6, 1923.
Rehearing Granted Oct. 17, 1923.)
On Motion for Rehearing.
Criminal law <&wkey;894(3)— Giving verbal instructions in prosecution for abusive language held reversible error.
In a prosecution for assault and abusive language, where the court first verbally instructed the jury and read to them two articles of the statute, one relating to abusive language and the other to language calculated to disturb the public peace, which was inapplicable to the case, and later on request gave a written instruction, such irregularity -held sufficient to require a reversal, in view of Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 740 forbidding the giving of a verbal charge, except in a misdemeanor case, and then only by consent.
Appeal from Witchita County Court, at Law; Guy Rogers, Judge.
Tom Manley was convicted of using abusive language, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
T. F. Hunter and B. E. Fischer, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
The offense is abusive language; punishment fixed at a fine of $50.
The appellant is charged in the complaint and' information with two counts: One with an assault upon C. C. Warnoch; the other with abusive language to the said C. C. Warnoch. There was evidence supporting both counts. The conviction, however, was on the count charging abusive language.
A reversal is sought by reason of certain matters that took place prior to the giving of the written charge. Originally, no written charge was requested. The court verbally instructed the jury. No complaint was made of this at the time. In connection with.the verbal charge, the court read to the jury two articles of the statute, one relating to the use of language calculated to disturb the public peace and the other relating to abusive language. He also copied these articles, and gave them to the jury. After these verbal charges were given and during the argument of the case, some controversy arose between the attorneys for the appellant and the state touching the clauses of the statute, which had been read to the jury, and,, after the argument had closed, and the jury had retired to consider their verdict, the counsel for the appellant requested the court to instruct the jury in a written charge. The court informed them that he would do so and prepared a written charge embracing the law of assault and abusive language. He withdrew the previous charge given, both that which was given verbally, and the articles of thé statute which were copied, and instructed the jury to rely upon the written-charge last given as the instructions which would govern them, and to disregard all others. The irregularities which characterize the trial seem to have grown out of the manner in which it was conducted with the acquiescence of the counsel for both the state and appellant. The law did not require the court to give a written charge in the first instance. He did not only instruct the jury verbally, but, in connection with the verbal charge, he read certain articles of the statute. One of these articles was not applicable to-the case. The other did apply to the phase of the case hpon which the conviction now rests. No complaint was made of this action-of the court, and, without objecting to it, the case was argued, when, for the first time, the demand for a written charge was made. The court gave it in terms which are not complained of, withdrawing his previous charge. We understand the law to permit the court to withdraw a charge, especially -under the circumstances which the present record reveals. Lott v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 162, 131 S. W. 553; Cyc. of Law & Proc. vol. 38, page 1787; Century Digest, Crim. Law, § 2065.
The affirmance of the judgment is deemed the proper disposition of the case, and it is so ordered.
<&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes