Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 Tex. Crim. 288

164 S.W 843

Simmons v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 25, 1914

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1914-02-25

<p>1. —Assault to Murder—Motion for New Trial—Bill of Exceptions.</p> <p>A bill of exceptions reserved to the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial adds no verity to the motion.</p> <p>2. —Same—Conduct of District Attorney.</p> <p>In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the complaint that the district attorney waved the pistol before the jury during his argument can not be t considered, when for the first time raised in the motion for new trial.</p> <p>3. —Same—Objections to Charge of Court.</p> <p>Under the recent law objections to the charge of the court must be made</p> <p>before the same is read to the jury, and where this is not done, and the question is for the first time raised in the motion for new trial, the same can .not be considered on appeal.</p> <p>4. —Same—Indeterminate Sentence Law—Punishment.</p> <p>Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law as it now stands, the court correctly required the jury to assess the punishment.</p> <p>5. —Same—Charge of Court—Aggravated Assault.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of assault to murder, the court’s charge upon adequate cause was applicable to the evidence and no special charge was requested, there was no error, and an objection to the court’s charge presented for the first time in the motion for new trial can not be considered.</p> <p>6. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.</p> <p>Where, upon trial of assault to murder, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no reversible error.</p> <p>'7.—Same—Bill of Exceptions—Motion for New Trial.</p> <p>A bill of exceptions to the overruling of a motion for new trial does not take the place of a bill of exceptions to proceedings during trial and does not present ■the matter for review.</p> <p>8.—Same—Sentence—Punishment—Reforming Judgment.</p> <p>Where the -jury assessed defendant’s punishment, and the court omitted under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to sentence him, this court will correct and reform the judgment and sentence to comport with the verdict.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1938

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1914-02-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 on rehearing.

¶2 March 18, 1914.

HARPER, Judge.

¶3 Reserving a bill of exceptions to overruling a motion for new trial does not take the place, nor will it answer in lieu of a bill of exceptions to proceedings had upon the trial of a case, and those matters which appellant seeks to raise by reserving a bill of exceptions to overruling the motion for new trial, and to which an exception should have been reserved during the trial at the time they occurred, do not present the matter in a way we can review them.

¶4 Appellant in his motion for a new trial complained that the court' erred in requiring the jury to assess the punishment. Since we called his attention to the fact that the first indeterminate sentence law was held invalid, he, in his motion for rehearing, insists that the court should have pronounced sentence in accordance with the terms of the indeterminate sentence law last passed, and in this he is correct. As the jury assessed his punishment at three years confinement in the State penitentiary, the court should have sentenced him to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of time not less than two nor more than three years, and the sentence is here now corrected and reformed to so read.

¶5 The motion for rehearing is overruled.

¶6 Overruled.

/73/texcrim/288 · .json · Public domain