Court Opinion

ID: 9675185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:44:12.918954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:32.180184
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that we should appraise his complaint to jury argument by considering his bill of exception which, as qualified, was adopted by the court and filed in the cause as the court’s bill of exception. In support of his contention apellant relies upon Aleman v. State, 169 Tex. Cr. Rep. 129, 332 S.W. 2d 317 where we did consider a court’s bill of exception which was filed in the cause after the recent amendment of Art. 760d, V.A.C.C.P. The Aleman case is not here controlling because in that case notice of appeal was given prior to the effective date of the amendment of Art. 760d, supra, and the filing and approval of the bill of exception was governed by the law as it existed before the amendment. Peterson v. State, 169 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 333 S.W. 2d 154. Notice of appeal is the instant case was given after the effective date of the amendment of Art. 760d, supra, and the filing and approval of the bill of exception is governed by the provisions of Art. 760d, supra, as presently amended.
Under the statute, Art. 760d, supra, as presently amended, the court’s bill of exception cannot be considered. Wortham v. State, 169 Tex. Cr. Rep. 164, 333 S.W. 2d 158 and Willie v. State, 169 Tex. Cr. Rep. 393, 334 S.W. 2d 159.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.