Soto v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Black v. State

    723 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that appellant preserved error regarding complaint that trial court failed to apply law of parties to facts of case in application paragraph, in case in which appellant objected that the jury charge "fails to apply the law to the specific facts as the definitions pertain to . . . the law of parties"

    "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.

  2. Brown v. State

    716 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 182 times
    Holding the claimed error in charge, if any, was harmless when "appellant's conduct alone [was] sufficient to sustain the conviction"

    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.

  3. Govan v. State

    682 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)   Cited 34 times
    In Govan v. State, 682 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985) all but the writer of today's majority opinion agreed that the objection made by the defendant to the jury charge was sufficient to apprise the trial court of the complained of error.

    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.

  4. Porter v. State

    605 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 3 times

    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.

  5. Bilbrey v. State

    594 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)   Cited 55 times
    Holding rehabilitation of witness by showing he had told same version of the facts before any offer of leniency was made by the State not improper to rebut defendant's attempt to impeach accomplice's testimony by raising inference that testimony was recent fabrication based upon State's offer of leniency

    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.

  6. Chavira v. State

    319 S.W.2d 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 24 times

    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.

  7. Cage v. State

    320 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 29 times
    In Cage v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 320 S.W.2d 364, this Court held the objection that the charge did 'not meet the requirements of the law regarding extraneous transactions' was not sufficient.

    [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.

  8. Bryant v. State

    293 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 1956)   Cited 12 times

    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.