Court Opinion

ID: 9641738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:39:27.805928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.505152
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION "FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Judge.
Appellant again insists that formal Bill of Exception No.. 5 shows that the trial judge erred because he communicated with the jury other than in open court and in the presence of *18appellant and his counsel in violation of the provisions of Arts. 676, 677 and 679, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.
Bill of Exception No. 5 as prepared and submitted by the appellant to the trial court contains only the following matter in regard to the court’s communication with the jury, to wit: “Because the court acted beyond the scope of his statutory authority and contrary to Arts. 676, 677 and 678 CCP which are mandatory, in answering interrogatories propounded by the Jury, and sent to the Judge, other than in open Court with said Jury in a body and in the presence of the defendant.”
The trial court certifies in said bill as follows: “When the jury sent an interrogatory to the court, the defendant and his attorneys were in the courtroom. The Court sent an answer back to the jury that he could not answer their question. Neither the defendant nor his attorneys made any objection to what was happening even though it is possible that the defendant’s attorneys left the courtroom before the Court had a chance to send an answer to the jury telling them that he could not answer their question.”
Appellant accepted the court’s qualification of the bill and is bound by the recitals therein. 1 Branch’s Ann. P.C., 2nd Ed., 275, Sec. 287.
We have again carefully considered the bill in the light of appellant’s contention and remain convinced that it does not show reversible error.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.