Case Name: A. G. Houseton v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-13
Citations: 95 Tex. Crim. 596
Docket Number: No. 7802
Parties: A. G. Houseton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 596–599

Head Matter:
A. G. Houseton v. The State.
No. 7802.
Decided June 13, 1923.
Rehearing denied November 7, 1923.
1. —Manslaughter—Statement of Facts — Charge of Court.
In the absence of a statement of facts, objections to the court’s charge cannot be considered on appeal.
2. —Same—Provoking Difficulty — Converse of Proposition.
Where appellant presented no exceptions to the charge of the court on provoking difficulty, and the converse of the proposition, his complaint thereto cannot be considered on appeal.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Statement of Facts.
There is some doubt in the court’s mind as to whether the trial judge can legally extend the time for filing a statement of facts beyond the ninety days allowed by statute. However, without discussing this the trial judge having refused to extend the time, and in the absence of any effort on the part of defendant’s counsel to prepare a proper statement of facts in time, there is no reversible error; and if a rehearing were granted it could not avail the appellant, as the time for filing a statement of facts has long passed.
Appeal from the District Court of San Saba. Tried below before the Honorable J. H. McLean.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, four years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Bell & Lawson for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
— Conviction is for manslaughter with an assessed punishment of four years in the penitentiary.
No statement of facts appears in the record, and the only exceptions are to certain paragraphs of the charge. In many instances the exceptions are qualified by a statement from the learned trial judge that he altered his charge to conform to the suggestions of counsel for appellant.
We find an exception to subdivisions five and six of the eighth paragraph of the charge on the ground, (a) that they are upon the weight of the evidence, (b) that the facts form no basis authorizing the court to submit them, and, (c) that they are misleading, for that the jury might conclude therefrom that in the opinion of the court the defendant by his own wrongful act produced a condition wherein it became necessary for his safety that he take the life of deceased. It needs only to set out the objections to make it apparent that this court cannot appraise such exceptions in the absence of knowledge of what facts were in evidence.
It is argued both orally and by brief filed that the court having charged on provoking the difficulty should also have charged the converse. Subdivision six of paragraph eight does present the converse. No exception was taken to it further than as indicated above. If appellant was dissatisfied with the language of it he should have presented exceptions sufficiently specific to call the trial court's attention to his complaint, or have requested a special charge amplifying it if he thought it necessary to do so. He did neither, and cannot be heard to complain at this late hour. Articles 737a, 743 C. C. P.; Rodgers v. State, 93 Texas Crim. Rep., 1, 245 S. W. Rep., 697; Richardson v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 318, 239 S. W. Rep., 218; Littleton v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 205, 239 S. W. Rep., 202; Jordan v. State, 91 Texas Crim. Rep., 371, 238 S. W. Rep., 1113.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.