Court Opinion

ID: 9777470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:11:54.260041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:54.384954
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Commissioner.
In his motion for rehearing appellant complains of the disposition of his contention regarding the court’s failure to limit in his charge the jury’s consideration of the testimony showing the assault committed upon the witness, Mrs. Martin.
Such complaint is not properly before us for review, under the objection made by appellant to the charge.
The objection to the charge reads:
“Defendant objects and excepts to the Court’s charge because it has not and does not properly limit the jury as to their consideration of the evidence as to other criminal acts alleged to have been committed by Defendant in Harris County.”
In the relatively recent case of Cage v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 320 S.W.2d 364, in passing upon a similar contention, we said that the objection that the charge did “ ‘not meet the requirements of the law regarding extraneous transactions’ ” was insufficient as an objection.
In the case at bar the court had instructed the jury as to one offense which had been committed in Harris County and might logically have thought that appellant’s objection went to that portion of the charge. The objection made by appellant does not meet the test of Art. 658, Vernon’s Ann.C.CP., which requires that the objection shall be made “distinctly specifying each ground of objection.”
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.