Case Name: SUESBERRY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-12-10
Citations: 162 S.W. 849
Docket Number: 
Parties: SUESBERRY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 162
Pages: 849–850

Head Matter:
SUESBERRY v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 10, 1913.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 14, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 921 ) — Reception oe Evidence-Objections and Exceptions.
Where no objection was made to the introduction of testimony or bills of exception reserved at the time of its introduction or during the trial of the case, it was too late to object after verdict in the motion for a new trial.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2206-2209; Dec. Dig. § 921. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1137 ) — Appeal—Review —Invited Error.
It was not error, of which accused could complain, that special charges requested by him were given, as the error, if any, was invited by him.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3007-3010; Dec. Dig. § 1137. ]
3. Criminal Law (§ 954 ) — Motion por New Triai^-Specipioation op Errors.
A motion for a new trial, on the ground that the court erred in refusing special charges specified as requested by accused, was too general to be considered.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2341, 2363-2367; Dec. Dig. § 954. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal Law (§ 1083 ) — Appeal—Record —Amendment.
Where the overruling of an amended motion for a new trial appeared only on the motion docket and was not carried into the minutes of the court, the court could not, after the adjournment of the term, and while an appeal was pending, enter nunc pro tune an order overruling such motion.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2732; Dec. Dig. § 1083. ]
5. Criminal Law (§ 1086 ) — Appeal—Reservation op Grounds op Review — Motion por New Trial.
A motion for a new trial, in a criminal case, could not be considered on appeal where the only record indicating that it was overruled was the entry on the motion docket.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2736-2769, 2770, 2772, 2794; Dec. Dig. § 1086. ]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; Sam’l J. Styles, Judge.
Charles Suesberry was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. M. Gibson and W. W. Wander, both of Houston, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Eor other oases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
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 vvit-nesses 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 Price after the cutting, they should acquit the defendant of the charge of murder or manslaughter." The court did in fact so charge the jury in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the charge. These are all the grounds alleged in the motion for a new trial, which was overruled by 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 cannot be considered by us.
The judgment is affirmed.