Case Name: Herbert Craven v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 93 Tex. Crim. 328
Docket Number: No. 7450
Parties: Herbert Craven v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 93
Pages: 328–332

Head Matter:
Herbert Craven v. The State.
No. 7450.
Decided November 29, 1922.
Rehearing denied January 31, 1923.
1. —Murder—Manslaughter—Name of Deceased — Idem Sonans.
Where the indictment was for the murder of Bennie or Benie Young, and the witnesses spoke of deceased as Benny Young, and one witness testified that deceased told him his name was Bennett Young, the same was idem sonans.
2. —Same—Requested Charge — Practice on Appeal.
Where the alleged requested charge was refused, but there was nothing in the 'record to indicate that such refusal was objectionable to defendant or that he reserved any exception thereto, there was no reversible error. Following, Fry v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 72, and other cases.
3. —Same—Insanity—Charge of Court — Requested Charges.
Where there was not sufficient testimony of insanity, but the court nevertheless submitted a requested charge thereon, there was no reversible error.
4. —Same—Insanity—Weakness of Mind — Rule Stated.
While the law forbids the'punishment of one for an act done in a state of insanity, yet mere weakness of mind will not excuse an act that would otherwise be criminal; the weakness of mind must reach the stage that the party does not know the difference between the right and wrong of the act done. Following, Mitchell v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 37, and other cases.
5. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Insanity—Presumptions of Sanity.
Where the defendant was convicted for manslaughter and the evidence did not lead to the conclusion that the state of defendant’s mind was such that he could not perceive between the right and wrong of the act in question, and the presumption being in favor of the sanity of the accused although there may have been testimony that his mind is not fully developed or that he is weak-minded, the conviction will be sustained, and the court’s refusal to submit to the jury the issue of insanity is not reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of Shelby. Tried below before the Honorable Chas. L. Brachfield.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
D. M. Short & Sons, for appellant.
On question of insanity, Berry v. State, 125 S. W. Rep., 580.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Hogue v. State, 146 S. W. Rep., 905; Coffey v. State, 131 id., 216; Mitchell v. State, 106 id., 124.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Shelby County of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
The indictment was for the murder of Bennie or Benie Young. From the stenographic report of the testimony it appears that the witnesses spoke of deceased as Benny Young. One witness testified that deceased told him his name was Bennett Young. The name of the injured party as alleged in the indictment and that attributed to him by the witnesses seems idem sonans.
Our inference from the record in its present condition would be that special charges Nos. 2 and 3 were given by the trial court. Special charge No. 4 appears to have been refused, but there is nothing on the bill as same appears in the record to indicate that such refusal was objectionable to the appellant, or that he reserved any exception to such action of the court below; nor does there appear any bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of such charge. This court holds that where there is nothing in the record neither on or a part of the special charge, and certified to by the court below, or in a separate bill of exceptions setting forth that an exception was taken to the refusal of the special charge, this court will have nothing before it for consideration in regard thereto. Nichols v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 277, 238 S. W. Rep., 232; Fry v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep., 72, 215 S. W. Rep., 560; Reese v. State, opinion November 29, 1922.
Complaint is made of the manner in which the issue of insanity was presented. We have examined the statement of facts and would be in doubt as to there being testimony sufficient to raise the issue, but the trial court seemed to think it necessary and, therefore, gave special charge No. 2 prepared by the appellant's counsel, and which seems to us a sufficient presentation of the law applicable to this issue.
Finding nothing in the record to call for a reversal, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.