
    GUITERREZ v. STATE.
    (No. 3298.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 4, 1914.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 841)—'Tbiai^-Instruc-tions—Objections—Presentation to Juey -Time-
    Objections to the charge and to the court’s refusal to charge, not made and exceptions taken thereto before the charge is read to the jury, are too late.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2022; Dee. Dig. § 841.]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1090)—Appeal—Rul-ings on Evidence—Bills of Exception.
    Rulings on evidence cannot be .reviewed, unless preserved by bills of exception.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653,2789,2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    3. Criminal Law (§ 1206)—Sentence— Cor- . rection.
    Where accused was convicted of murder, and his punishment assessed at 12 years in the penitentiary, the judgment will be reformed to conform to the indeterminate sentence law.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3271-3277, 3279, 3280; Dec. Dig. § 1206.]
    Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; Leigh Clark, Special Judge.
    Yietor Guiterrez was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Reformed and affirmed.
    C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other eases see same topic'and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDS'ON, J.

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, cannot 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 cannot be considered. .

The sentence of the court, however, must be reformed. The jury gave appellant 12 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.  