Court Opinion

ID: 9770412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:04:10.508435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.172895
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge
In our original opinion, we did not consider certain motions filed by appellant addressed to the court concerning the production of evidence in advance of trial because it was not shown that such motions were presented to the court and a ruling secured thereon with an exception reserved by appellant to the court’s ruling. Appellant’s complaints to the court’s charge were also not considered because of the absence of any exception to the court’s ruling in regard thereto.
By supplemental transcript it is now shown that the motions were duly presented to the court and by the court overruled with exception reserved by appellant to the court’s ruling. It is also shown that appellant duly excepted to the court’s action in overruling appellant’s objections and exceptions to the court’s charge.
Under the record as now presented, we shall consider appellant’s complaints to the court’s action in such matters.
The first motion filed by appellant, if granted by the court, would have required the state to produce at the trial the metal door of the building which appellant was charged with having attempted to burglarize. We know of no rule which requires a trial court to order the State to produce certain evidence at the trial of a criminal case. The entry of any such order as requested by appellant would be within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and no abuse of discretion is shown herein.
The second motion filed by the appellant would have required the State to furnish the appellant in advance of the trial with a transcript of the testimony of the prosecuting witness before the grand jury. In Angle v. State, 165 Tex. Cr. Rep. 305, 306 S. W. 2d 718, the court’s refusal to compel the district attorney to turn over to the appellant in the cause the testimony of a witness before the grand jury was held not to constitute error. In Hill v. State, 167 Tex. Cr. Rep. 229, 319 S.W. 2d 318, the refusal of a pre-trial demand that the state be required to produce for the appellant’s examination a written statement of a witness al*398legedly in the hands of the prosecution was held not to present error. Under the authority and reasoning in these cases, we find no error in the court’s refusal to grant appellant’s motion in the instant case.
Appellant insists that the court erred in charging the jury on the law of principals over his objection that the evidence was insufficient to warrant such a charge. The facts as shown in our original opinion were clearly sufficient to authorize a charge on the law of principals. In his brief, appellant insists that the charge given by the court on the law of principals is erroneous because it did not charge the converse of such law. Appellant made no objection to the charge on such ground, in the absence of which his complaint thereto will not be considered. Cage v. State, 167 Tex. Cr. Rep. 355, 320 S.W. 2d 364.
We have again reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s other contentions and remain convinced that a proper disposition was made of the case in our opinion on original submission.
The motion is overruled.
Opinion Approved by the Court.