Court Opinion

ID: 9653329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:44:11.388711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:57.888659
License: Public Domain

*285ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that we erred in refusing to consider his complaints of the court’s charge because it was the duty of the court to instruct the jury on every essential question in the case whether requested or not.
Art. 658, V.A.C.C.P., in placing the duty upon the trial judge to deliver a written charge to the jury in a criminal case, provides in part as follows:
“In each felony case and in each misdemeanor case tried in a court of record, the Judge shall, before the argument begins, deliver to the jury, except in pleas of guilty, where a jury has been waived, a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case. * * * Before said charge is read to the jury, the defendant or his counsel shall have a reasonable time to examine the same and he shall present his objections thereto in writing, distinctly specifying each ground of objection.”
It is further provided in Art. 659, V.A.C.C.P.:
“Before the court reads his charge to the jury, counsel on both sides shall have a reasonable time to present written instructions and ask that they be given to the jury.”
Art. 666, V.A.C.C.P., further provides:
“All objections to the charge and to the refusal or modification of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial.”
In applying the provisions of these statutes, it has been the consistent holding of this court since the amendment to Art. 658, supra, in 1913, that complaint of a charge will not be considered on appeal in the absence of a proper objection made in the trial court or the submission of a requested charge covering the matter of which complaint is made. Gerard v. State, 91 Texas Cr. R. 374, 238 S.W. 924; Garriott v. State, 128 Texas Cr. R. 103, 79 S.W. 2d 848; Jones v. State, 149 Texas Cr. R. 441, 195 S.W. 2d 349; Woods v. State, 152 Texas Cr. R. 525, 215 S.W. 2d 334; May v. State, 160 Texas Cr. R. 582, 272 S.W. 2d 886; Robbins v. State, 161 Texas Cr. R. 96, 274 S.W. 2d 691.
Under the authorities cited in our original opinion, the action of the court in overruling the objections to the charge and *286refusal of the requested charges cannot be considered in the absence of a showing in the record that an exception was reserved to the court’s ruling.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.