"And it has also been said that an objection to the charge which is too general to call the court's attention to the defect or omission and which does not point out where the charge did not correctly set forth the law presents nothing for review. Chanira v. State, [167 Tex.Crim. R.] 319 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Cr.App. 1958); Bryant v. State, [163 Tex.Crim. R.] 293 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Cr.App. 1956); Soto v. State, [ 161 Tex.Crim. 239] 275 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Cr.App. 1955). Maloney v. State, [119 Tex.Crim. R.] 45 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Cr.App. 1932), held that the objection was too general to call the court's attention to the omission complained of, that the mere presence at the scene would not constitute defendant a principal. "In Cain v. State, [136 Tex.Crim. R.] 124 S.W.2d 991 (Tex.Cr.App. 1939) (Opinion on Rehearing), the objection 'that nowhere in said charge has the court charged on the definition of the laws of principals, applying the law to the facts on principals, and charged on the converse of said application of the law to the facts' was held insufficient to call the court's attention to the contradiction between the charge on principals and the charge on alibi.
See also Dozier v. State, 143 Tex.Crim. R., 158 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.Cr.App. 1942). And it has also been said that an objection to the charge which is too general to call the court's attention to the defect or omission and which does not point out where the charge did not correctly set forth the law presents nothing for review. Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. R., 319 S.W.2d 115 (Tex.Cr.App. 1958); Bryant v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 463, 293 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Cr.App. 1956); Soto v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. R., 275 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Cr.App. 1955). Maloney v. State, 45 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Cr.App. 1932), held that the objection was too general to call the court's attention to the omission complained of, that the mere presence at the scene would not constitute defendant a principal.
R., 293 S.W.2d 646 (1956); Soto v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. R., 275 S.W.2d 812 (1955). In Criddington v. State, 127 Tex.Crim.
Clough v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. 454, 278 S.W.2d 847 (1955). Failure to charge on the intent was not reversible error where there is no objection. Soto v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.App. 239, 275 S.W.2d 812 (1955). In a conviction for receiving stolen property, the failure to insert "fraudulently" in the court's charge in applying the law to the facts is not reversible error.
Appellant's objection at trial stated merely that "(the court's charge) fails to adequately (sic) apply the law to the facts." The objection is not specific enough to apprise the court of what is complained of and presents nothing for review. Article 36.14, V.A.C.C.P.; Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. R., 319 S.W.2d 115 (1958); Bryant v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. R., 293 S.W.2d 646 (1956); Soto v. State, 161 Tex.Crim. R., 275 S.W.2d 812 (1955). Neither was the failure to apply the law of parties to the facts fundamental error.
Appellant's objection was too general to call the court's attention to the omission, and did not point our wherein the charge did not correctly set forth the law applicable to the case, and therefore presents nothing for review. Soto v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 239, 275 S.W.2d 812, and Bryant v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 463, 293 S.W.2d 646. In the Nichols case, supra, a specific exception was made to the court's failure to give such an instruction.
[167 Tex.Crim. 361] Appellant's objection to the charge that it constituted 'an unwarranted comment by the Court on the evidence' and did 'not meet the requirements of the law regarding extraneous transactions' constituted a general objection to the charge and did not specifically point out to the Court any error therein as required by Art. 658, supra, therefore appellant's complaints to the charge are not properly presented for review. Gill v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 208 S.W. 926; Lucas v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 166, 225 S.W. 257; Parsons v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 524, 278 S.W. 444 and Soto v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 239, 275 S.W.2d 812. The Court's refusal to give the appellant's requested charge which would have instructed the jury to acquit appellant if they believed or had a reasonable doubt that he withdrew the $100,000 or caused the same to be withdrawn under a claim of right, was not error as the issue of appellant taking the money under a claim of right was not raised by the evidence.
Bill No. 1 certifies that appellant `timely objected in writing that the said charge as prepared did not correctly set out and state the law applicable the the evidence in the case.' Such objection was too general in that it did not specifically point out wherein the charge did not correctly set out and state the law applicable to the evidence in the case, and therefore presents nothing for review. Soto v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 275 S.W.2d 812. Bill No. 2, as qualified by the court, certifies that the alteration of the charge was made before the charge was read to the jury and any argument commenced; and that the charge as amended was submitted to counsel before being read to the jury.