Case Name: Charles Suesberry v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-12-10
Citations: 72 Tex. Crim. 439
Docket Number: No. 2739
Parties: Charles Suesberry v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 439–441

Head Matter:
Charles Suesberry v. The State.
No. 2739.
Decided December 10, 1913.
Rehearing denied January 14, 1914.
1. -—Manslaughter—Bills of Exception.
In the absence of bills of exception, objections to the introduction of testimony can not be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—Charge of Court—Invited Error.
Where the alleged error in the court’s charge was invited by special requested charges, there was no error, but even where such charges were refused, the same can not be reviewed where the objections thereto are of a general character; besides, the court submitted the matter in his main charge.
3. —Same—Amended Motion for New Trial—Practice on Appeal.
Where it appeared from the record that after the overruling of the motion for new trial the appellant attempted to file an amended motion for new trial without leave of the court and which was never acted on by the trial court, the same can not be considered on appeal.
4. —Same—Nunc Pro Tunc Order—Amended Motion for New Trial.
An entry on the motion docket permitting defendant to file an amended motion for new trial after notice of appeal, and which entry was not carried into the minutes of the court, can not be considered on appeal, and the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter such nunc pro tune order. Following Lewis v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 126, and other cases.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Harris. Tried below before the Horn Sam’l Styles, Judge, sitting in exchange.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Gibson & Wander, for appellant.
C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant on this trial was convicted of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the State penitentiary.
The first two grounds in the motion for a new trial complain of the action of the court in admitting the testimony of the witnesses E. B. Sisk and John Price. As no bills of exception were reserved to the introduction of the testimony of these witnesses, the record does not disclose that this testimony was objected to at the time of its introduction, nor during the trial of the case, and after verdict it is too late to object to the introduction of testimony admitted on the trial of the case.
The third ground of the motion for a new trial reads as follows: "The court erred in giving special charges 1, 2, 3, 4 as requested by the defendant." Of course, the court would not err in giving a special charge requested by the person on trial, for if error there be in giving such charge, it would be error invited by defendant in requesting such instruction. However, while the motion for a new trial reads as indicated above, yet the record discloses that such special charges were not in fact given, but were marked "refused" by the court, and the question arises, is the objection too general to be considered. In this ground of the motion there can be no doubt that the exception is too general to be considered. However, the next ground in the motion complains that the court erred in failing to "charge the jury that if they believed that septic poison was introduced into the wound by the cloth sweater or towel placed there by the witness Brice after the cutting that they should acquit the defendant of the charge of murder or manslaughter." The court did in fact so charge the jury in paragraphs fourteen and fifteen of the charge. These are all the grounds alleged in the motion for a new trial, which was overruled b'y the court. After the motion for a new trial had been overruled by the court what is termed "an amended motion for a new trial" was filed without leave of the court to do so being obtained, and which was never acted on by the trial court. Under such circumstances the amended motion for a new trial can not be considered by us.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.