Case Name: REGITTANO v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-02-08
Citations: 257 S.W. 906
Docket Number: No. 6391
Parties: REGITTANO v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 257
Pages: 906–911

Head Matter:
REGITTANO v. STATE.
(No. 6391.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 8, 1922.
State’s Rehearing Granted Nov. 29, 1922. Appellant’s Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1924. Second Motion for Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1924.)
On State’s Motion for Rehearing.
I.Criminal law &wkey;>l056(l) — Assignment of errors in charge not excepted to not considered.
In a murder prosecution where no exception was leveled at any omission to couple an instruction on reasonable doubt with instruction on self-defense, ’assignments of error thereon will not be considered.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;844( I)■ — Exception must be directed at charge so trial court can perceive and correct error therein.
To be sufficient under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Pr'oc. 1916, arts. 735-743, exceptions must be directed at some portion of the charge with such particularity as to enable the trial court to perceive and correct supposed errors.
On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>l09l(IO)— Bill of exceptions must show exceptions to charge were in writing.
Bill of exceptions reciting that a charge was excepted to for various reasons is not sufficient to bring such alleged exceptions for review unless exceptions appear to have been made in writing distinctly specifying grounds of objection as provided by Vernori’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 735.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;l 115(2)— Not held on appeal that amended return to special venire was insufficient in absence of complete record.
Where sheriff’s amended return to special venire does not appear in record nor does supplemental motion to quash such return, and bill of exceptions taken on refusal of motions to quash does not show that motion was sworn to, it cannot be held on appeal that the amended return was insufficient or that it showed conclusions.
5. Homicide &wkey;>!74(2) — Permitting testimony of blood found on automobile or around scene of shooting not error.
In murder prosecution where defendant claimed he shot deceased in self-defense and there were no witnesses to the killing, there was no error in permitting testimony as to the blood found on the automobile or around the scene of the shooting and that at the place where deceased was found there was a little blood.
6. Homicide &wkey;>300(7)— Charge on possession of pistol by deceased at time of killing inapplicable to facts.
In murder prosecution, where defendant claimed that after he was shot by deceased he took the pistol from her and shot her with it, a special charge that if deceased was armed with a pistol at the time she was killed the law presumed that she intended to murder or inflict serious injury on defendant was not applicable.
7. Criminal law <5&wkey;l09l (4)— Complaint in bill of exceptions that deceased had wedding ring on finger held to present nothing for consideration.
Bill of exceptions complaining that witness in murder prosecution stated that body of deceased had a wedding ring on its finger stated only the ground of defendant’s objection an,d presented nothing which can be considered.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
-William Regittano was convicted, of manslaughter, and hie appeals.
Affirmed.
Meek & Kahn and John M. Cobb, all of Houston, and Vaughan & Abney, of Hillsboro, for appellant.
E. T. Branch, Dist. Atty., of Houston, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Appellant was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years. He shot and killed Harriet .Jenkins. The deceased was a woman of negro blood, but apparently white. She was the paramour of the appellant. The two were riding in an automobile at nighttime. '
fhis is appellant's version of the homicide: She was driving the car and stopped it at about six miles out. Appellant got out to crank it. She told him that she wanted $200 and used abusive language to him. He had more than that amount of money on his person, but declined to give if to her, stating that he needed it to use in connection with his business. He had been unable to crank the car and was standing near it, talking to her. She shot him in the neck. He said:
"I grabbed her and took the pistol away from her. I shot once, two, or three, or four times; I don't know what; I cannot tell of it exactly; I don't kn,ow; and after a while I fell down. I don't know how long I stayed there. I might have stayed there for two or three hours; I don't know what. I could not see where I was going. I was standing with my elbow on the rear fender. She was in front, sitting on the fender; I did not know anything was going to happen. I did not know she was going to shoot me. The shot caused me pain and suffering. I thought it would kill me. I fell on her; I grabbed her; I took the gun; I could not swear what I done. After I was shot I was afraid."
It was shown that appellant was found in the road in a dazed condition, badly shot; that, through the aid of others, he finally reached a sanitarium and was treated for the wound.
The doctor said:
"He was shot in the neck. The bullet entered here; that it entered about midline of the body under the chin and went diagonally across the mouth, and passed in behind the eye, and came out on his right forehead, shattering part of the skull. He had an opening in the top of the mouth, and the wound necessitated the taking out of his eye. There was no signs of any powder burns. The effect of the wound was an injury to the front part of the brain. He was bloody. A wound of that kind causes bloodshed, pain, and suffering. I took the bullet out of him. It was lodged under the skin, 'and it cut under the hone. When I operated on him I took the bullet out, and some shattered bone. It was a lead bullet of 38 caliber."
A number of witnesses testified in substance that it would have been impossible for the wound to have been. self-inflicted without leaving powder stains upon the skin, and that there were none found.
' The body of the deceased and the car in which she and appellant had been riding were found.- The .only explanation of the incident is that given by the appellant.
The court, in addition to the charge on murder and manslaughter, instructed upon, the law of self-defense. The charge on self-defense was in these words:
"A reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm will excuse a party in using all necessary force to protect his life or person, and it is not necessary that there should be actual danger, provided he acted upon a reasonable apprehension of danger as it appeared to him from his standpoint at the time, and in, such case the party acting under such real or .apparent danger is in no event bound to retreat in order to avoid the necessity of killing his asailant.
"If from the evidence you believe the defendant killed the said Harx-iet Jenkins, but further believe that at the time of so doing the deceased had shot him and caused him to have a reasonable expectation or fear of death or serious bodily injury and that acting under such reasonable expectation or fear, the defendant shot and killed the deceased, then you should acquit him.
"If you believe from the evidence that the said Harriet Jenkins shot the defendant and. that he seized the pistol used by her and shot and killed her, then you will acquit the defendant."
This charge is complained of because, in effect, it required the jury to believe appellant's defensive theory as a predicate for acquittal, whereas he was entitled to an acquittal if there existed in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt as to whether his defensive theory was true. This complaint is met by the state with the proposition that the court, at the close of the charge, having instructed upon the law of reasonable doubt in the language of the statute, no .error was committed in failing to give such an instruction in connection with the charge presenting appellant's affirmative theory of self-defense..
Upon this subject, it seems to the writer that the authorities are not harmonious. Powell's Case, 28 Tex. App. 398, 13 S. W. 599, apparently supports the state's theory, while Johnson's Case, 29 Tex. App. 150, 15 S. W. 647, apparently supports the position of the appellant. These two cases were written by the same judge, and it may be that in the respective records there were facts differentiating them, which in the report of the cases are not revealed. Among the cases in line with Johnson's Case, supra, are Bennett v. State, 30 Tex. App. 341, 17 S. W. 545; Rutherford v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 432, 88 S. W. 810; Bird v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 96, 90 S. W. 651, 122 Am. St. Rep. 803; Moody y. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 232, 105 S. W. 1127; Henderson v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 194, 101 S. W. 245; Stewart v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 223,101 S. W. 800; Harris v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. R. 479, 117 S. W. 839; Maloney v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 435, 125 S. W. 36; Castro v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 282, 146 S. W. 553; Vernon's Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 683, subd. 18.
Mr. Branclvin annotating the Penal Code, states the rule, as deduced from numerous decisions, in these words:
"A charge is error which requires the jury to 'find' or 'believe' the defensive theory before they can acquit, if reasonable doubt is not also charged in immediate connection with the same paragraph." Branch's Ann. Tex. Penal Code, § 11, p. 5; Smith v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 251, 76 S. W. 434; Bennett v. State, 30 Tex. App. 341, 17 S. W. 545.
Upon this question, this court, through Judge Willson, said:
"We thin,k the paragraph is subject to the exception that it requires the juty to believe from the evidence the existence of the conditions which entitled him to acquittal. It virtually requires the jury to believe from the evidence that he is innocent before finding him not guilty, whereas the correct rule is that the jury must presume his innocence until his guilt has been established by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury entertained a reasonable doubt upon the whole evidence of the defendant's guilt, it was their duty to acquit him, although they might not believe from the evidence the existence of the facts and conditions, or any of them, mentioned in said paragraph. It is true that in concluding his charge the learned judge gave the usual instruction as to the presumption of innocence and as to reasonable doubt, and ordinarily such instruction is sufficient, but in this case we do not think it' was sufficient to correct and counteract the error in paragraph five." Johnson v. State, 29 Tex. App. 150, 15 S. W. 647.
In the instant case, it is the state's burden to show that the homicide was committed by the appellant and that it was unlawful. If the jury had a reasonable doubt as to either, it was their duty to acquit, and this without reference to whether they credited the appellant's defensive theory or not. The statute on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt operates without reference as to whether appellant presents any defensive theory. The statute says:
"The defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legál evidence; and, in case of reasonable doubt as to his guilt, he is entitled to be acquitted." Code of Crim. Proc., art. 785.
See, also, Knight v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. R. 541, 144 S. W. 967; Vernon's Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 678, subd. 11, and cases listed.
The law requiring a charge on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt is generally satisfied when the doctrine is applied by a charge referring to the whole case; that is, referring to the general issue of guilty or not guilty. Vernon's Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 684, subd. 19, and cases cited. It has been held that it is not required that it shall be charged in every case with regard to each affirmative independent offense. McCall v. State, 14 Tex. App. 353; Edwards v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 342, 125 S. W. 894. It is believed, however, that where, as in the instant case, the defensive theory is an affirmative one — that is, where the connection of the accused with the homicide is conceded and justified by affirmative testimony given by the accused — when the matter is properly presented in the trial court, there should be embodied in the charge 'submitting his - defense the information to the jury that, if they believe the affirmative defensive facts or have a reasonable doubt of their truth, an acquittal should result. This we understand to be the rule applied in Johnson's Case, supra, and followed in many others to which we have adverted. Moreover, we believe it to be a correct and sound rule, when considered in connection with our statutes upon the law of homicide and the statute concerning the presumption of innocence, and we are of the opinion that the failure of the trial judge, in response to appellant's objection to the charge, to correct it in accord with these views, was error which requires a reversal of the judgment.
The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.
^m>For other cases see same topic and KEY-IN'UMBER in ali Key-Numbered Digests and indexes