TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Munoz v. State

Romaldo Munoz v. the State

Munoz v. State, 179 S.W. 566 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 20, 1915
Docket
No. 3710.
Judges
Harper
Citations
179 S.W. 56677 Tex. Crim. 5451915 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 124
Headnotes
1. —Murder—Bill of Exceptions—Motion for New Trial. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, a complaint to the introduction of testimony, made in a motion for new trial, can not be considered on appeal. 2. —Same—Charge of Court—Weight of Evidence. Where, in the beginning of the court’s charge, be informed the jury that defendant stands charged by indictment with the offense of the murder of S. G., alleged to have been committed by him, this is not a charge on the weight of the evidence. 3. —Same—Charge of Court—Defendant’s Failure to Testify. Where defendant requested the court to instruct the jury that his failure to testify should not be taken as a circumstance against him, to which the court conformed, there was no error.
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Harper

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder, and his punishment assessed at twenty-five. years confinement in the State penitentiary.

As there was no exception reserved to the introduction of the testimony of the witness John Slomsehinskie the complaint in regard to same, in the motion for new trial, does not present the matter in a way we can review the action of the court.

In the beginning paragraph of the charge of the court he informed the jury that “appellant stands charged by indictment with the offense *546 of the murder of Sapriano Gonzales alleged to have been committed by him.” ■ This does not suggest to the jury that in the opinion of the court appellant was guilty, as contended in the complaint, of the charge.

As appellant requested the court to instruct the jury that his failure to testify should not be taken as a circumstance against him, certainly the court so doing presents no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bills v. State305 S.W.2d 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)

Most recent

  1. Bills v. State305 S.W.2d 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list