Thayer v. State
452 S.W.2d 496
Tex. Crim. App.
1970
Check Treatment

Herbert A. THAYER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 42635.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1970.

496-497

The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the appellant was the person who committed the offense charged.

In his third ground of error the appellant complains, “The objections to the charge of the court speak for themselves, and, without repeating them here (they appear in R. 8 & 9), it is respectfully urged that the trial court erred in overruling.” The record shows that the appellant made 15 general objections to the court‘s charge, and in his brief he does not present any argument or authorities in support of his complaint. The ground of error does not comply with the requirement of Art. 40.09, V.A.C.C.P. The appellant‘s third ground of error is overruled.

Complaint is made that the trial court erred at the guilt stage of the trial in refusing to permit the appellant to introduce testimony as to his character and reputation before the jury. Appellant fails to point out where in the record it shows that such testimony was excluded. An examination of the record does not show that such testimony was excluded. The appellant‘s fourth ground of error is overruled.

Appellant further complains that the suggested forms of verdict were prejudicial to him. An examination of the suggested forms reveals no error. The appellant‘s fifth and sixth grounds of error are overruled.

Appellant‘s seventh ground is that the trial court erred in not defining “lascivious” or “lascivious intent,” in its charge to the jury. In absence of an objection to the trial court‘s charge, or a request for such definitions, the ground of error cannot be reviewed. Arts. 36.14 and 36.15, V.A.C.C.P.;

. The appellant‘s seventh ground of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

B. Guy Smith, Houston, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., and Phyllis Bell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State‘s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The offense is unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.

No grounds of error are set forth in a brief filed in the trial court as required by Article 40.09, Vernon‘s Ann.C.C.P.

We have examined the record and find nothing contained therein which we should consider as unassigned error under Section 13 of said Article.

No question based on indigency is raised.

The judgment is affirmed.

OPINION ON APPELLANT‘S MOTION FOR REHEARING

ONION, Judge.

On original submission this cause was affirmed in a per curiam opinion with the court noting that no appellate brief had been filed as required by Article 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P.

On rehearing for the first time appellant has filed a brief contending the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury, as requested, to acquit the appellant if he possessed the pistol in question only on his own premises. See Articles 483 and 484, Vernon‘s Ann.P.C. Appellant urges that we consider this contention as unassigned error “in the interest of justice.” See Article 40.09, Sec. 13, V.A.C.C.P.

If we were to consider the same as unassigned error, we would first have to observe that we find no special requested charge or objection in writing to the court‘s charge as required by Articles 36.14 and 36.15, V.A.C.C.P. We do find in the transcription of the court reporter‘s notes, after the close of the testimony, an oral objection to the court‘s charge on the basis claimed. Assuming that such objection was made prior to the charge being read to the jury, attention is called to

. There this court held that the requirements of Articles 36.14 and 36.15, supra, would control over the provisions of Article 40.09, Sec. 4, V.A.C.C.P., giving effect to a transcription of the court reporter‘s notes which are certified and included in the record on appeal. See also
;
;
;
;
;
;
. Thus where an oral objection to the charge is only dictated to the court reporter, nothing is presented for review.

The court reporter‘s notes indicate she was not requested to take the testimony until shortly before the State rested its case in chief. From the record before us we note that Houston police officers observed an automobile with a defective muffler and followed it. As they pulled into the parking area of a business establishment they saw the appellant, who had been the driver of the automobile, standing near the automobile with a pistol in his hand.

The business establishment was that of the appellant. It is clear from the defensive testimony appellant had the pistol with him in the automobile. We cannot conclude that the evidence was such as to have required the court to have responded to the objection, even if it had been properly and timely presented.

Appellant‘s motion for rehearing is overruled.