However, even assuming that the court's definition is susceptible to that interpretation, and therefore erroneous, and that error was preserved by proper objection, no reversible error is presented, because the definition may be given a construction consistent with the law and the facts, and there is no showing that the jury was misled by the court's language. A trial judge is given considerable discretion in framing legal definitions for submission to the jury, Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, 367 S.W.2d 185, 203 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1963), rev'd on other grounds, 380 S.W.2d 582 (Tex. 1964), and if a charge is susceptible to more than one interpretation, it will be presumed that the court intended the correct interpretation. See Loving County v. Higginbotham, 115 S.W.2d 1110, 1114 (Tex.Civ.App. — Eastland 1938, writ dism'd); 3 R. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice in District and County Courts, sec. 12.37.1 (1983).
City of Austin v. Hoffman, 379 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Civ.App.), no writ hist. ($82,243.70 with $25,000 for physical pain and mental anguish); City Transp. Co. of Dallas v. Davis, 257 S.W.2d 476 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., n.r.e. ($5,000); Viking Construction Co. v. Beaird, 337 S.W.2d 699 (Tex.Civ.App.), no writ hist. ($171,200 with remittitur of $31,200); Houston Belt Terminal Ry. Co. v. Burmester, 309 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., n.r.e. ($160,000 with remittitur of $40,000); Texas N.O.R. Co. v. Foster, 266 S.W.2d 206 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., n.r.e. ($30,000); Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, 367 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Civ.App.), reversed on other grounds, 380 S.W.2d 582 ($56,500); McDonald v. M.K.T. R.R. Co., 401 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. 1966), ($48,541 with trial court remittitur of $10,000); Cronenberg v. United States, 123 F. Supp. 693 (D.C.) ($35,000); and Barnes v. Smith, 305 F.2d 226 (10 Cir.) ($400,000). The last cited case dealt with a twelve-year old boy of normal physical and mental development who was, in the court's words, 'completely destroyed as a human being.' The court described his condition as follows, 'Severe and permanent brain injuries have resulted in loss of memory, loss of intellectual functioning, loss of orientation in space and time, difficulty in chewing, swallowing, talking and breathing, partial paralysis and injury to both legs and arms, loss of control over elimination processes, and many other difficulties. He is, however, aware both of his former normalcy and his present helpless and hopeless condition.
The State having failed to object to any of the fourteen arguments when made, and having brought only one of the fourteen to the trial court's attention in motion for new trial, it is now too late to afford the opportunity to erase erroneous impressions, if any there were, that the jury received from the arguments. Unless an argument is patently improper, and is of such harmful nature that an instruction could not relieve its prejudicial effect upon the jury, reversal of the cause should not result. Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, 367 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, rev. on other grounds Tex., 380 S.W.2d 582, 592, col. 2). All points of error presented by the State on Appeal are overruled.
This is the second appeal of this case. The opinions of this Court and the Supreme Court are found in 367 S.W.2d 185 and 380 S.W.2d 582, respectively. The parties here are the same as before.