Cane v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cane v. State

700 S.W.2d 26, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12827

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 7, 1985

DocketNo. 09-83-211 CR

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 700 S.W.2d 26 (Cane v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cane v. State, 700 S.W.2d 26, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12827 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, and subsequently perfected appeal to this court. We reversed the conviction in a published opinion. Cane v. State, 698 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1984). We reversed because the court included in its charge to the jury “Objectives of Law” which were a portion but not all of the preamble to the Penal Code contained in TEX.PENAL CODE ANN sec. 1.02 (Vernon 1974). The State then perfected appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals in which a majority held that we erred and that it was discretionary on the part of the trial judge.

Subsections (4), (5), and (6) of the preamble (Sec. 1.02) were not included in the Court’s “Objectives of Law.” The Court of Criminal Appeals held that appellant’s objection in the trial court to the court’s “Objectives of Law” did not suffice to preserve an objection to the trial court’s failure to include subsections (4), (5), and (6) of the preamble (Sec. 1.02), and remanded the case to this Court to determine under the rule of Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), if the error is egregious.

[27]*27We take it that it is proper for a trial judge to include the preamble of an act in his charge but that it is advisable to use all of the preamble and not edit it. However, if he uses only a portion of the preamble, it will be reversible only if the error is egregious.

We hold that the court’s failure to include subsections (4), (5), and (6) of the preamble to the Penal Code (Sec. 1.02) in his “Objectives of Law” was not egregious. This addresses appellant’s first four grounds of error which are, therefore, overruled.

Appellant’s remaining grounds of error are all grouped together in his brief and concern responses by the trial court to jury communications. Appellant cites no authority for these grounds of error. We find them to be without merit and, thus, overrule them.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, and subsequently perfected appeal to this court. We reversed the conviction in a published opinion. Cane v. State, 698 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1984). We reversed because the court included in its charge to the jury “Objectives of Law” which were a portion but not all of the preamble to the Penal Code contained in TEX.PENAL CODE ANN sec. 1.02 (Vernon 1974). The State then perfected appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals in which a majority held that we erred and that it was discretionary on the part of the trial judge.

Subsections (4), (5), and (6) of the preamble (Sec. 1.02) were not included in the Court’s “Objectives of Law.” The Court of Criminal Appeals held that appellant’s objection in the trial court to the court’s “Objectives of Law” did not suffice to preserve an objection to the trial court’s failure to include subsections (4), (5), and (6) of the preamble (Sec. 1.02), and remanded the case to this Court to determine under the rule of Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1985), if the error is egregious.

[27]*27We take it that it is proper for a trial judge to include the preamble of an act in his charge but that it is advisable to use all of the preamble and not edit it. However, if he uses only a portion of the preamble, it will be reversible only if the error is egregious.

We hold that the court’s failure to include subsections (4), (5), and (6) of the preamble to the Penal Code (Sec. 1.02) in his “Objectives of Law” was not egregious. This addresses appellant’s first four grounds of error which are, therefore, overruled.

Appellant’s remaining grounds of error are all grouped together in his brief and concern responses by the trial court to jury communications. Appellant cites no authority for these grounds of error. We find them to be without merit and, thus, overrule them.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 S.W.2d 26, 1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cane-v-state-texapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack