Bridges v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40840,40840 |
| Citation | 422 S.W.2d 449 |
| Parties | Thomas Joseph BRIDGES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
S. John Odom, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
The appeal is from a misdemeanor conviction for the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated.
Trial was before a jury on a plea of not guilty and the jury found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at one year in jail and a fine of $200.
The case was tried on October 25, 1966. The record on appeal, approved by the trial judge on February 9, 1967, contains no transcript of the evidence and no formal bill of exception. It does contain a requested charge which the court refused.
The refusal of such requested charge is relied on in support of the ground of error which complains that 'the trial court erred in refusing the appellant a bifurcated trial on a plea of not guilty to a jury in a misdemeanor case in accordance with Art. 37.07 C.C.P. and Art. 36.01 C.C.P.'
Art. 36.15 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. provides that the defendant may, by a special requested instruction, call the court's attention to error in the charge, as well as omissions therefrom, and no other exception or objection to the court's charge shall be necessary to preserve any error 'reflected by any special requested instruction which the trial court refuses.'
We find nothing in the requested charge which was not included in the charge which was read to the jury. Had it been incorporated in the court's main charge pursuant to Art. 36.15, supra, it would have been but a repetition of a portion of the charge other than that relating to the assessment of punishment.
It is well settled that failure of the trial court to give instructions covered in the main charge is not error. Numerous cases so holding are listed under Art. 36.15, Notes 78 to 87 inclusive, V.A.C.C.P.
The special requested charge asked only that such charge be given. It did not in any way call the trial court's attention to any error or omission in the charge originally drafted nor did it indicate appellant's desire for a bifurcated trial. Further, it did not request that such charge be given in lieu of any portion of the court's original charge. Even if it had been given, repetitious as it was, it would not have resulted in a bifurcated trial.
Art. 37.07, supra, has been amended since this case was tried. It was construed by this court in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. State
...Aranda v. State, 506 S.W.2d 221, 225 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Estrada v. State, 479 S.W.2d 316, 317 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Bridges v. State, 422 S.W.2d 449, 450 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). See also Harrison v. State, 630 S.W.2d 350, 353 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1982); LeDuc v. State, 593 S.W.2d 678, 685 We conc......
-
Brumfield v. State
...where the possible punishment could be confinement in jail. Cf. Seefurth v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 931, 937; Bridges v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 422 S.W.2d 449; Attorney General's Opinion C--587 (January 25, Therefore, Article 37.07, supra, was properly utilized in the case at bar. While......
-
Seefurth v. State
...complains that there was no bifurcated trial in this misdemeanor case. See Article 37.07, V.A.C.C.P. (1965). Only recently in Bridges v. State, 422 S.W.2d 449, this Court noted the difficulties and necessity of construing the 1965 version of Article 37.07, supra. See Rojas v. State, Tex.Cr.......
-
Basaldua v. State, 44580
...the possible punishment could be confinement in jail. Cf. Seefurth v. State,422 S.W.2d 931, 937 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Bridges v. State, 422 S.W.2d 449 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Attorney General's Opinion No. C--587 (January 25, In 1967, Article 37.07, supra, was amended (Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1739......