
    Victor Guiterrez v. The State.
    No. 3298.
    Decided November 4, 1914.
    1.—Murder—Bills of Exception—Charge of Court.
    Where, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, it appeared from the record that no objections were urged to the charge of the court before it was read to the jury, the same could not be raised in motion for new trial.
    8.—Same—Rule Stated—Objections to Charge of Court.
    Objections to the charge of the court must be presented before the same is read to the jury, at which time exceptions thereto should be noted and all requested instructions should also be submitted then and properly verified. ' •
    3. —Same—Bill of Exceptions—Evidence.
    In the absence of a bill of exceptions, complaints to the introduction of testimony can not be considered on appeal.
    4. —Same—Reforming Judgment—Indeterminate Sentence Law.
    Where the indeterminate sentence law was ignored in entering the judgment and sentence, the same will be reformed on appeal.
    Appeal from the District Court of El Paso. Tried below before the Hon. Leigh Clark, Special Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, twelve years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. B, Lane, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   DAVIDSON, Judge.

—Appellant was convicted of murder, his punishment being assessed at twelve years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record contains a statement of facts but no bills of exception. There were no objections urged to the charge before being read to the jury. The motion for new trial alleges that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the court’s charge is on the weight of the evidence. Under our recent statutes these objections to the charge come too late; they should have been presented to the court before the court’s charge was read to the jury, at which time the exceptions should have been noted and properly verified for the inspection of this court, and all requested instructions should also have been asked before the court’s charge was read to the jury, and refusal to give those also noted and properly verified. These matters with reference to the charge and requested instructions which were refused can not be considered in the manner in which they are shown in the record.

There are several grounds of the motion for new trial setting out that the court erred in the introduction of testimony, but there were no bills of exception reserved, therefore these can not be considered.

The sentence of the court, however, must be reformed. The jury gave appellant twelve years in the penitentiary. The judgment and sentence both fail to apply the indeterminate sentence law. To that extent the judgment will be reformed so as to comply with the indeterminate sentence Act of the Legislature. The clerk will enter the proper judgment here.

The judgment is ordered reformed and affirmed.

Affirmed.  