
    MUNOZ v. STATE.
    (No. 3710.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 20, 1915.)
    1. Criminal Daw <©=>1054^-Appeal — Exceptions— Necessity.
    The court on appeal cannot review the admission of evidence, alleged as ground for a new trial, to which no exceptions were preserved on the trial below.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2662-2664; Dec. Dig. <©=> 1054.]
    2. Criminal Daw ®=^762 — Trial—Instructions — Opinion of Court.
    An instruction that appellant “stands charged by indictment with the offense of the murder of S. G., alleged to have been committed by him,” does not suggest to the jury the opinion of the court that the defendant was guilty.
    [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §S 1731. 1750, 1754, 1758, 1759, 1769; Dec. Dig. <®=762.]
    3.Criminal Daw <©=>1137 — Trial—Instructions — Invited Error.
    Where the court, on defendant’s request, charges that his failure to testify shall not be taken as a cix-cumstance against him, defendant cannot show error in the invited charge.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 3007-3010; Dec. Dig. <©=> 1137.]
    Appeal from District Court, Atascosa County; F. G. Chambliss, Judge.
    Romaldo Munoz was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. O. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder, and his punishment assessed at 25 years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

As there was no exception reserved to the introduction of the testimony of the witness John Slomschinskie, 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 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.  