Case Name: TAYLOR et al. v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-04-13
Citations: 230 S.W. 176
Docket Number: No. 6207
Parties: TAYLOR et al. v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 230
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
TAYLOR et al. v. STATE.
(No. 6207.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 13, 1921.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;>1043(2) — Criticisms of charge not considered on appeal in absence of specific objections.
Since the amendment of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proe. 1916, art. 735, unless objections are filed to the court’s charge pointing out specific errors complained of, they cannot be considered on appeal.
2. Criminal law. <&wkey;f090(8) — Cross-examination not brought up by bill of exceptions not considered on appeal.
Appellate court cannot review a contention that state on cross-examination of wife of one of the defendants went farther than the direct examination would permit, where such matter is not brought forward by bills of exception; such matters not being fundamental error that may be raised at any time or in any way.
Appeal from District Court, Mitchell County; W. P. Leslie, Judge.
E. M. Taylor and Luther Morrow were convicted of manslaughter, and appeal.
Affirmed.
L. W. Sandusky, of Colorado, Tex., and J. E. Cunningham, of Abilene, for appellants.
R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellants were convicted of manslaughter, and their punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for four years each.
In their motion for a new trial appellants complain of some portions of the court's charge, and also that the wife of one of the appellants, on cross-examination by the state, was. asked a question which went farther than the direct examination warranted. We find in the record no objection to the court's charge, and no special charges of any kind requested, and no bills of exception. While the motion for a new trial criticizes the charge of the court in many particulars, the most serious objection urged is to an alleged error in the charge on self-defense. Since the amendment of article 735, Vernon's C. C. P., it has been uniformly held by this court that, unless objections were- filed to the court's charge pointing out specific errors complained of, they would not be considered by this court, and to permit it to he done would defeat the very purpose of the law. In Crossett v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 440, 168 S. W. 548, the following language was used:
"The object of the Legislature, as shown by said act of April 5, 1913, amending said articles- above specified [735], was that whatever objections an accused on trial had to the court's charge should be distinctly then and there pointed out so as to give the judge an opportunity to correct his charge, if the objections were at all applicable. In other words, the object and intention of the Legislature was that an accused on trial must aid the lower court in giving a correct charge, instead of waylaying Mm, taking chances of an acquittal, and then securing a reversal, as had theretofore been the case, by making objections for the first time to the charge of the court after the trial was concluded."
Notwithstanding this, we have examined the charge of the court, and, while it might have been amplified in some particulars if the trial judge's-attention had been called to it in a timely way, yet, taking the charge as a whole, we regard it as an admirable presentation of the law to the jury. If the al- ' leged error in the charge was so slight as to escape the attention of counsel for appellant at the time it was presented to him for his inspection, it is not likely that it in any way misled the jury in their deliberations.
Counsel contends that, if the state on cross examination of the wife of one of the appellants went farther than the direct examination would permit, it is fundamental error and may be raised at any time and in any way. We cannot agree with counsel in this contention. This court cannot review matters of that character unless they are brought forward by bills of exception. It does not appear that the question was answered in a way which would have been at all harmful to the appellants, or either of them, but, even if this were not true, the matter is not verified by a bill of exceptions, and the court could not consider it.
Finding no error of any character in the record which this court is authorized to pass upon, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
(SrxoFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes