The fact that the trial court gave forms of verdict, in the absence of a showing which would suggest prejudice to the accused, none of which appears in the present case, there is no just ground for complaint. See Smith v. State, 280 S.W. 200; Hickox v. State, 95 Tex.Crim. Rep.. Appeal from the District Court of Nacogdoches County. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Hodges, Judge.

Harris v. State, supra, at 824. Judge Lattimore, for one, believed "such practice should [not] be commended," Hickox v. State, 95 Tex.Crim. 173, 253 S.W. 823, at 826 (1923), regarding it among "expedients in criminal trials [which] should be avoided when there exists room for doubt as to their propriety," Smith v. State, 103 Tex.Crim. R., 280 S.W. 200, at 201-202 (1926). Nonetheless, a rule approving the practice did develop, viz:

Some cases had held it "commendable,' Williams v. State, 24 Tex. App. 637[ 24 Tex.Crim. 637], 7 S.W. 333; Oates v. State, 51 Tex.Crim. R., 103 S.W. 859; Crook v. State, 27 Tex. App. 198[ 27 Tex.Crim. 198], 11 S.W. 444, while other opinions had discouraged the practice. Smith v. State, 103 Tex.Crim. 103, 280 S.W. 200; Hickox v. State, 95 Tex.Crim. R., 253 S.W. 823. The Harris decision also observed that All cases agreed that, if forms are provided, the court should include a form for every possible verdict which might be returned under the evidence and the court's charge so as to avoid conveying to the jury any impression as to the judge's opinion as to what particular verdict should be rendered.

Other opinions discourage the practice. See Smith v. State, 280 S.W. 200; Hickox v. State, 95 Tex.Crim. Rep., 253 S.W. 823.