Court Opinion

ID: 9777126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:59:02.521355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:48.916968
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Our remarks heretofore made on Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing are withdrawn and the following is substituted in lieu thereof.
Appellant complains of our statement in our original opinion that counsel for appellant failed to object to the court’s supplemental charge on the ground that the charge was coercive. We stand corrected. Counsel did register an objection to the charge on that ground. The objection appears in the statement of facts under two paragraphs and somehow we overlooked the paragraph wherein counsel objected to the coercive nature of the charge. The fact remains, however, that the record fails to show that the trial court made a ruling thereon in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 272 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant does not assign as error the action by the court in overruling its objection to the charge because there was no ruling. Therefore we are not authorized to consider the complaint. It is only from alleged erroneous rulings that an appeal may be perfected. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.