Court Opinion

ID: 9778677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:16:10.346682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.511894
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
On original submission we cited Choice v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 224, 298 S.W.2d 148, and Burrows v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 349, 81 S.W.2d 523, as authority for holding that an objection to a portion of the court’s charge on the ground that it was a comment upon the weight of the evidence complies with the requirement that the defendant or his counsel shall present his objections to *515the charge “in writing distinctly specifying each ground of objection.”
A reading of the opinions in these cases will reveal that the sufficiency of the objection to the charge was not considered or discussed and they are not authority for the holding that the objection in the case before us set out in our original opinion herein was sufficient. See Ernster v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 422, 308 S.W.2d 33.
Authorities wherein an objection that a portion of the court’s charge was upon the weight of the evidence was considered and held insufficient include the following: Gill v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 208 S.W. 926; Cage v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 320 S.W.2d 364; Campos v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 179, 356 S.W.2d 317; Rymer v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 353 S.W.2d 35; Cotton v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 36, 32 S.W.2d 648; Davis v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 294, 306 S.W.2d 353.
Insofar as the opinion in Choice v. State or Burrows v. State, supra, may be construed as in conflict with these authorities such opinion is overruled.
The requirements of Art. 36.14 (formerly Art. 658) Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. that the objections to the court’s charge shall distinctly specify each ground of objection is mandatory. Cedillo v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 371, 307 S.W.2d 267.
The State’s motion for rehearing is granted; the order reversing the conviction is set aside and the judgment is affirmed.