Sidor som bilder

$ 417 (Tex.Cr. App.) Statements made by wit 8 510 (Ky.) At common law the rule that the nesses for the state to the county attorney at jury should not convict on the unsupported tesan ex parte hearing at which accused was not timony of an accomplice was one of practice, present are inadmissible to prove the offense and a conviction on such evidence could not be charged.-Liner v. State, 156 Š. W. 211. quashed as illegal; the better practice being for 8 417 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution of a ne

the judge to advise the jury to acquit unless gro for unlawfully carrying a weapon, evidence the accomplice's testimony be corroborated as to of a statement made by accused's brother that accused's participation.-Commonwealth v. Barhe was going to take a pistol away from a

ton, 156 S. W. 113. white man, made in accused's absence and in

Cr. Code Prac. § 241, prohibiting a convicthe absence of proof of conspiracy, was inad- tion upon the testimony of an accomplice unmissible.–Gibbs v. State, 156 S. W. 687.

less corroborated, construed with section 242, $8 419, 420 (Tex.Cr.App.) Evidence that ap- requiring direction of an acquittal in the ab other told witness that he had given authority misdemeanors as well as to felonies.-id.

sence of necessary corroboration, applies to to sign a certain name to a check claimed to have been forged was not admissible in a prose testified as to the road traveled, the kind of

8510/2 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where an accomplice cution for forgery, being hearsay.-Davis v. State, 156 S. W. 1171.

vehicle and horses driven, etc., and said that

defendant had offered him a pistol, testimony of (G) Acts and Declarations of Conspirators the officer who arrested him that he had a 'pisand Codefendants.

tol was admissible as corroborative of the tes$ 4 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the facts in a timony of the accomplice.-Holmes v. State,

156 S. W. 1172. prosecution for kidnapping showed a conspiracy, the acts, words, and conduct of each and all larations made by him nor by testimony of an

An accomplice cannot be corroborated by decof the conspirators in furtherance of the common design and until the termination of the

other accomplice.-Id. conspiracy, and whether the person on trial 8 51! (Tex.Cr. App.) The testimony of an acwas actually present at all times or not, were complice may be corroborated by circumstanadmissible.-Nunez v. State, 156 S. W. 933. tial evidence.-Cole v. State, 156 S. W, 929.

$ 424 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where one jointly indicted with accused was first tried and convict

(K) Confessions. ed, statements made by him to third persons about the crime were inadmissible in behalf of out caution to the accused that it might be used

8 518 (Ark.) That a confession is made with. accused.-Castenara v. State, 156 S. W. 1180.

against him does not render it incompetent un(H) Documentary Evidence and Exclusion 156 S. W. 427.

less invalidated by statute.-Greenwood v. State, of Parol Evidence Thereby. $ 429 (Tex.Cr. App.) Under Rev. Civ. St. 1911,

$ 519 (Ark.) A confession made without art. 1748, authorizing county clerks to appoint threat of injury or promise of reward or addeputies, articles 368743713, authorizing the in- vantage, and in the absence of any influence troduction of copies of such deputation in evi- swerving accused from the truth, is voluntary. dence, and article 2287 and articles 9-14, de-1-Greenwood v. State, 156 S. W. 427. claring a justice of the peace to be an ex officio questions to the accused either by an officer or

A confession is admissible, though elicited by notary public, with powers to administer oaths by a private person, and even though the form and take affidavits, a record showing an ap- of the question assumes the prisoner's guilt. pointment by a county clerk of a deputy, ac

-Id. knowledged before a justice of the peace, is admissible in evidence.-Smith v. State, 156 S.

Defendant's confession, though obtained withW, 645.

out warning that it might be used against him

and by persistent questioning on the part of (1) Opinion Evidence.

the officers, but without deception or hope of $ 448 (Tex.Cr.App.) The testimony of a wit- reward, or any threat other than the remark ness, who had measured tracks and the shoes of that it would be better for his conscience if he accused that they were of the same length, was told everything, was a voluntary confession.-Id. a statement of fact.-Wilson v. State, 156 S.

$ 535 (Ark.) Under Kirby's Dig. § 2385, proW. 204.

viding that a confession, unless made in open $ 473 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where physicians were court, will not warrant a conviction unless acqualified and testified as to an examination of companied with other proof that such offense a wound in defendant's arm and described the was committed, there must be independent eviwound and its condition, their testimony as to dence to establish that the crime was actually the length of time it had been inflicted was ad- committed by some one.-Greenwood v. State, missible.-Pullen v. State, 156 S. W. 935.

156 S. W. 427. $ 475 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for homicide with a pistol, opinion evidence by an ex

(M) Weight and sufficiency. pert as to how the balls entered and left de $ 549 (Tex.Cr.App.) Exculpatory or ceased's body is inadmissible, where the expert able explanation showing innocence must be did not view the wounds until after they had shown false, and it may be viewed or weighed been stuffed with cotton.-Roberts v. State, 156 in the light of all the facts and its falsity so S. W. 651.

determined.-McKnight v. State, 156 S. w.

1188. (J) Testimony of Accomplices and Code

$ 552 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where circumstantial fendants.

evidence is relied upon, the facts must exclude $ 507 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where an officer or other every other conclusion or hypothesis except person takes steps to detect a crime or get that of guilt to warrant a conviction.-Wilevidence, such person, when testifying as

liams v. State, 156 S. W. 938. witness, is not an accomplice.-Ausbrook v. $ 561 (Tex.Cr.App.) One charged with crime State, 156 S. W. 1177.

is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt 8 50742 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant on every issue of fact going to show his guilt.tempted to raise the issue that an adverse wit- Jones v. State, 156 S. W. 1191. ness was an accomplice, held, that it was prop $ 572 (Mo.App.) If the evidence left a reasoner to allow the witness in support of his state- ; able doubt as to defendant's presence at the ment that he had not been discharged by his place of the offense at the time of its commis. employer for his connection with the offense to sion, he could not be convicted, for the preexplain his absence from work for a few days.- sumption of innocence attends him throughout Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. 1172.

the trial and be can only be convicted on the




establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable that such statements were not competent to esdoubt.-State v. Miles, 156 S. W. 758.

tablish defendant's guilt.-Liner v. State, 156


8 683 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused, on trial UANCE.

for seduction, showed, on the cross-examination 8 594 (Tex.Cr.App.) The court did not err, on of prosecutrix, that he paid expenses incurred the day of a criminal trial, in refusing accus- by her going away, the state could show that ed time to inform her attorney, who had just he had not paid all the expenses but that her been employed, to get a witness, who would father had paid part of them.-Cole v. State, have testified that she and accused were to- 156 S. W. 929. gether shortly before the alleged commission, 8 684 (Ky.) The court may permit in rebuttal but whose attendance accused had made no testimony that should have been introduced in effort to secure.—Johnson v. State, 156 S. W. chief.-Duff v. Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 149. 1181.

$ 687 (Ky.) Under Cr. Code Prac. $8 220$ 596 (Tex.Cr.App.) It is not error to refuse 223, defining the order of proof and proceeda continuance on the ground of the absence of ings in criminal cases, the action of the court in a witness whose testimony is impeaching.-Cole permitting the commonwealth's attorney, in his v. State, 156 S. W. 929.

closing argument, to compel accused to stand up $ 598 (Tex.Cr. App.) Accused, who relies on before the jury by the side of a state's witness his sister's word that she will attend court, held reversible error.–Balee v. Commonwealth, does not show diligence essential to a continu- 156 S. W. 147. ance on the ground of her absence.-Cole v. $ 687 (Tex.Cr.App.) Whether a case shall be State, 156 S. W. 929.

reopened after the testimony has closed is with8 598 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant was ar- in the sound discretion of the court.-Cole v. rested on May 19th and no process was issued State, 156 S. W. 929. for any witness until October 26th, the cause being set for trial October 31st, there was an

(E) Arguments and Conduct of Counsel. inexcusable lack of diligence, warranting the $ 720 (Tex.Cr.App.) Argument of the proseoverruling of an application for a continuance. cuting attorney is not improper where based on -Nunez v. State, 156 S. W. 933.

legitimate deductions from the testimony.

Wrba v. State, 156 S. W. 1164.

$ 721 (Tex.Cr. App.) District attorney's lan(A) Preliminary Proceedings.

guage, containing only an indirect reference to

defendant's failure to testify, held not reversi$ 622 (Tex.Cr.App.) Persons jointly indicted have the right to a severance and to direct the ble error.–Pullen v. State, 156 S. W. 935. order of trial on a severance.-Sanchez v. State, al for selling intoxicating liquor in prohibition

8 721 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where accused on a tri156 S. W. 218.

territory, did not testify, the statement of the 8 629 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant filed no motion to be furnished the names of wit might as well expect accused to testify that he

state's attorney in his argument that the jury nesses not indorsed on his copy of the indict. sold intoxicating liquor as to expect a state's ment, but waited until the case was called for witness to so testify was an improper reference trial, he thereby waived his right to object that to accused's failure to testify.-Jones v. State, the names had not been furnished him.-Holmes 156 S. W. 1191. v. State, 156 S. W. 1172.

8 722 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for (B) Course and conduct of Trial in Gen- breaking schoolbouse windows, argument of

county attorney inferentially charging accused

with other petty offenses of which there was $ 637 (Tex.Cr.App.) The fact that defendant no charge or evidence held error.-Liner v. State, was arrested in another case pending against | 156 S. W. 211. him during the time he was on trial was not ground for reversal.--Nunez v. State, 156 S.

$ 723 (Ky.) While accused's guilt or innoW. 933,

cence must be determined from the facts of the $ 641 (Tex.Cr.App.) White's Ann. Code Cr: lence of crime, it is within the limits of legiti

case, and he cannot be affected by the prevaProc. art. 547, requiring the court in capital mate argument to insist upon the jury doing felony cases to appoint counsel for accused, too its duty for the purpose of preventing bloodshed poor to employ counsel, is mandatory.-Burden and crime.-Williams v. Commonwealth, 158 v. State, 156 S. W. 1196.

S. W. 372. $ 643 (Tex, Cr. App.) Under White's Ann. Code Cr. Proc. art. 547, requiring the court in remarks of a prosecuting attorney, qualified by

$ 726 (Tex.Cr. App.) A bill of exceptions to capital felony cases to appoint counsel for ac, the judge's statement "refused because in ancused too poor to employ counsel, and Acts 320

swer to argument of defendant's counsel," preLeg. p. 264, providing for official court stenographers, the court, in a capital felony case 1172.

sents no error.-Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. appointing counsel for accused, must compel the stenographer, when an appeal is perfected, to

$ 730 (Ky.) Remark of commonwealth's atfurnish a transcript.-Burden v. State, 156 s. torney in murder case that there were nine murW. 1196.

der cases on the docket, and that this state of

affairs would not be stopped until some one was 8 649 (Tex.Cr.App.) On facts stated, held, sent to the chair, held not reversible error, that refusal to defer the selection of a jury un- though improper, where the court withdrew it til defendant had been furnished with the, from the jury's consideration.-Williams names of all contributors to a fund in aid of Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 372. prosecution was not error.-Holmes V. State, 156 S. W! 1172.

(F) Province of Court and Jury in Gen

eral. (C) Reception of Evidence.

$ 741 (Tex.Cr.App:) An instruction on a trial 8 671 (Ark.) The approved practice is to with- for horse theft held not on the weight of the draw the jury while the court is hearing evi- evidence.-Haley v. State, 156 S. W. 637. dence to determine whether a confession is ad- $ 744 (Ky.) Where a second indictment showmissible.-Greenwood v. State, 156 S. W. 427. ed, on its face, that it was a continuation of

8 673 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where contradictory state the former prosecution, begun by indictment ments of unsatisfactory witnesses for the state which had been quashed, and there was no conwere admitted, it was error to refuse to charge I flict in the evidence on the question, the court



should not submit to the jury the question tial evidence was error.-Huddleston v. State, whether the second indictment was returned in 156 S. W. 1168. lieu of the former.-Balee v. Commonwealth, 156

$ 792 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for the S. W. 147.

theft of cattle, where it was an issue whether 8 761 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the issue was defendants were so connected with the origwhether beer sold by accused in prohibition inal taking as to be principals, the jury should territory would produce intoxication, an in- have been appropriately instructed thereon.struction that beer is a fermented liquor, and McKnight v. State, 156 S. W. 1188. that all fermented liquors are intoxicating, was $ 800 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution for aserroneous for failing to leave the issue to the sault with intent to kill, held, that an instrucjury.-Jones v. State, 156 S. W. 1191.

tion on adequate cause without explaining or de$$763, 764 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution for fining the same was erroneous.-Robinson v. the theft of cattle, an instruction that, if they State, 156 S. W. 212. were stolen as charged and found in the pos $ 811 (Ky.) ID prosecution for unlawfully session of defendants shortly thereafter, such detaining a woman against her will, an instrucpossession and the explanation thereof, if any, tion, that if accused took hold of her with inwould be proper for the consideration of the tent to have carnal intercourse this would be jury in determining the guilt or innocence of an unlawful taking and detaining, is not imthe defendants under all the circumstances was proper in singling out certain circumstances objectionable as a charge on the weight of the and charging that they would constitute guilt. evidence.-McKnight v. State, 156 S. W. 1188. -Black v. Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 1013.

88 763, 764 (Tex.Cr.App.) A charge given aft 8 814 (Ky.) A statement by accused to third er the jury's retirement, on its request, as to persons as to how he came to enter the chamwhether it could convict of an attempt to com ber of prosecutrix, which was overheard and mit theft from the person under an indictment | testified to by the witness, is not a confession charging theft, which authorized such convic-that requires an instruction on the subject of tion upon the finding of an attempt in the confessions.-Black v. Commonwealth, 156 S. state and county named and on the date al- | W. 1043. leged in the indictment, and from the person $ 814 (Tex.Cr. App.) In a prosecution for kidnamed as owner held not on the weight of the napping, where the jurisdiction of the offense evidence.-Bell v. State, 156 S. W. 1194. was in issue and where there was no proof that

the channel of the Rio Grande had suddenly (G) Necessity, Requisites, and Sufficiency changed, there was no error in refusing deof Instructions.

fendant's requested charge assuming that the $ 770 (Tex.Cr. A pp.) In a prosecution for the river had suddenly changed its course into a theft of cattle, an instruction that, if they were

new channel.-Nunez v. Štate, 156 S. W. 933. stolen as charged and found in the possession 8 814 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where there was no tesof defendants shortly thereafter, such posses- timony suggesting that certain parties were acsion and the explanation thereof, if any, would complices, the court did not err in refusing to be proper for the consideration of the jury in submit that issue to the jury.-Holmes v. State, determining the guilt or innocence of the de- 156 S. W. 1172. fendants under all the circumstances was ob

$ 815 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for jectionable as submitting the defendants' inno- theft from the person, an instruction held not cence; his guilt being the only question for the improper in unduly limiting the defense, in exjury.-McKnight v. State, 156 S. W. 1188.

cluding from the consideration of the jury the $ 772 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for the question whether accused had any money, or theft of cattle, where the question of defend- whether the money found on him was that won ants' possession in the county where the in- by him in gambling.–Green v. State, 156 S. W. dictment was found was fought out before the 682. jury on the facts, a charge failing to submit such issue was reversible error.- McKnight v.

$ 815 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for the State, 156 S. W. 1188.

theft of cattle, where defendant explained that $ 779 (Tex.Cr. App.) An instruction that if pointed out, and did not claim them, an in

he did not know they were in his herd until defendants, or either of them, assaulted the struction that if they were stolen as charged, prosecuting witness with intent to kill, to find and defendant was found in possession therethem, or either of them, guilty of assault with of, such possession and its explanation, if any, intent to murder, was erroneous; since it au- might be considered on the question of guilt thorized a conviction of both, if either made an was erroneous assault with such intent.-Maldonado v. State, phase of the case.-McKnight v. State, 156 S.

as not submitting defendant's 156 S. W. 647.

W. 1188. $ 780 (Tex.Cr. App.) In prosecution for

$ 823 (Tex.Cr.App.) An instruction that prosburglary, the mere fact that an employé of the ecutrix, on a trial for seduction, is an accomowner of the warehouse was employed to feed plice and that accused cannot be convicted on stock and carried a key to the warehouse would her testimony alone unless there is other evinot raise the issue of his authority to permit dence tending to connect accused with the ofanother to go to it in the dead of night to carry fense, is not erroneous for failing to charge on away feed, so as to require a charge thereon.- reasonable doubt covered by an instruction folHolmes v. State, 156 S. W. 1172.

lowing.–Cole v. State, 156 S. W. 929. $ 784 (Tex.Cr. App.) It is only when the testimony relied on for a conviction is wholly cir

(H) Requests for Instructions. cumstantial that the court is required to charge on circumstantial evidence; and, where there

$ 829 (Tex.Cr. App.) It was not error to rewas positive testimony that defendant was the fuse a special charge which was fully embraced man who committed the burglary, the weight in the charge given.--Irving v. State, 156 S. W. of which was somewhat weakened by cross-ex

641. amination, no charge on circumstantial evi $ 829 (Tex.Cr. App.) An instruction held to dence was necessary.- Pullen v. State, 156 S. sufficiently charge that there can be no seducW. 935.

tion unless prosecutrix yielded her virtue alone $ 784 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where there had been in consideration of promise of marriage, so no difficulty between defendant and deceased. that it was not error to refuse a requested and defendant in a general fight struck deceas: I charge on the subject.-Cole v. State, 156 S. W. ed, but it was not shown who the others in the

929. fight were or what kind of an instrument made $ 829 (Tex.Cr. App.) The refusal of special the wound, a failure to charge on circumstan- I charges is not error where fully covered by the


court's main charge.-Holmes v. State, 156 S. XV. APPEAL AND ERROR, AND
W. 1172.


(A) Form of Remedy, Jurisdiction, and
(J) Custody, Conduct, and Deliberations

Right of Review.
of Jury.

$ 1020 (Mo.App.) Where the punishment was
$ 850 (Tex.Cr. App.) The fact that a deputy properly fixed at a fine of $20 against each of
sheriff was a witness in a case did not disqual two defendants charged with obtaining money
ify him from performing his official duty in under false pretenses, an appea was properly
guarding the jury.-Holmes v. State, 156 S. taken to the Court of Appeals.-State v.
W. 1172.

Krouse, 156 S. W. 727.
$ 857 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where several of the ju § 1020 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc.
ry after retirement discussed defendant's fail- 1911, art. 87, declaring final a judgment of the
ure to take the stand in his own behalf con- county court' for $100 or less, on appeal from
trary to the charge of the court, such miscon- an inferior court, it is not appealable to the
duet was reversible error.-Huddleston v. State, Court of Criminal Appeals.-Corbett v. State,
156 S. W. 116S.

156 S. W. 206.
$ 863 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under Code Cr. Proc. $ 1026 (Ky.) Voluntary and unnecessary pay-
1911, art. 754, permitting the jury, after re. ment of fines imposed by judgments in prosecu-
tirement, to ask further instructions, and re tions for illegal sale of liquor, so that the
quiring the court to instruct on the particular amount of the fine remaining in one case was
point asked, an instruction that the jury could less than $50, held to require a dismissal of ap-
convict of attempt to commit theft from the peals under Cr. Code Prac. $ 347.-Eutsler v.
person under an indictment charging theft from Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 855.
the person, held proper in response to a ques-
tion as to whether the jury could so convict.- (B) Presentation and Reservation in Low-
Bell v. State, 156 S. W. 1194.

er Court of Grounds of Review.

$ 1036 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where prosecutrix was
(K) Verdict.

tested as to her competency, and the court de.
$ 878 (Tex.Cr. App.). Where accused was found mony went before the jury, accused, reserving

cided that she was competent, and her testi-
guilty of breaking the laws of the live stock no exception, could not complain of the ruling.
sanitary commission, the verdict would neces-

-Kinch v. State, 156 S. W. 649.
sarily be applied to the count attempting to
charge that defense, and not for the purpose of except to any part of the charge given in a

$ 1038 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where accused did not
upholding a conviction to those charging a
violation of Pen. Code 1911, art. 1283.-Rbea Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 743, and requested no spe-

misdemeanor prosecution, as required by Code
v. State, 156 S. W. 643.

cial charge, there was no reversible error.--

Johnson v. State, 156 S. W. 1164.

(C) Proceedings for Transfer of Cause,

and Effect Thereof.
$ 922 (Tex.Cr.App.) An exception to the re-
fusal to charge on circumstantial evidence in 14, providing that where the court appoints an

S 1077 (Tex.Cr.App.) Act 32d Leg. p. 268, §
a misdemeanor case comes too late when made
for the first time on a motion for new trial.- attorney to represent the defendant the official

reporter shall furnish such attorney, if con-
Schneider v. State, 156 S. W. 944.

victed, and where an appeal is prosecuted,
8 922 (Tex.Cr.App.) Error in the charge as

with a transcript, as provided in section 5, for
given can be taken advantage of in the motion which service the state shall pay, etc., when
for a new trial.-Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. construed with section 8, does not authorize

the furnishing of a transcript of the evidence
8 938 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where the alleged new. to an accused, who was represented by employ-
ly discovered evidence would only be admissible ed counsel.-Jackson v. State, 156 S. W. 1183.
as tending to impeach a witness and would not § 1084 (Ky.) Under Cr. Code Prac. $ 336, sub-
be of that force as would probably produce a secs. 1, 2, providing that an appeal prayed dur-
different result, the denial of the motion for ing the term must be granted, and that a sus-
new trial was not error.-Holmes v. State, 156 pension of the execution of the judgment must
S. W. 1172.

be ordered, the circuit court must, as matter of
8 945 (Tex.Cr.App.) New trial held not to right, grant an appeal prayed during the term
be granted for newly discovered evidence con- and suspend execution of the judgment.-Balee
sisting of a witness' testimony that sbe and ac v. Commonwealth, 156 S. W. 147.
cused were together on the evening of the crime,
where it appeared that they had separated be (D) Record and Proceedings Not in Rec-

fore the commission of the theft.-Johnson v.
State, 156 S. W. 1181.

$ 1088 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where the official ste-
8 951 (Tex.Cr.App.) A motion for new trial, the court to furnish a transcript, and the court

nographer failed to comply with the order of
filed after the term at which conviction was
had, comes too late.-Kinch v. State, 156 S. W. took no steps to compel him to do so, and the

stenographer could not comply with the order

of the Court of Criminal Appeals because he
$ 956 (Ky.) A new trial, asked for miscon- bad lost a part of his notes, the case must be
duct of a juror, is properly denied, where the reversed and remanded.-Burden v. State, 156
affidavit setting up the juror's misbehavior in S. W. 1196.
expressing an opinion failed to show that ac-

$ 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) On appeal in a criminal
cused and his counsel did not learn thereof un case, where the record contains neither a state.
til after verdict.-Black v. Commonwealth, 156 ment of facts nor bills of exception, the suffi-
S. W. 1013.

ciency of the evidence to warrant a conviction
$ 956 (Tex.Cr. App.) Evidence on the issue cannot be reviewed; the testimony not being
whether the jury, before agreeing upon their before the court.--Lane v. State, 156 S. W. 204.
verdict, had referred to defendant's failure to § 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) Rulings on evidence can.
testify, held to show that a juror's reference not be considered on appeal. where no bills of
to such failure was made after the jury had exception thereto are contained in the record. -
agreed upon defendant's guilt, though before Smith v. State, 156 S. W. 214.
the fixing of the time of punishment.-Pullen 8 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) In the absence of bills
v. State, 156 S. W. 935.

of exceptions, objections to the admission and


rejection of evidence cannot be considered.- | be reviewed in the absence of statement of
Smith v. State, 156 S. W. 645.

facts in the record.-McCain v. State, 156 S.
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) Where the record con- | W. 640.
tains no statement of facts or bills of excep- $ 1097 (Tex.Cr.App.) In the absence of a
tions, no question raised in the motion for a statement of facts, the insufficiency of tbe evi-
new trial is reviewable.-Jaynes v. State, 156 dence to sustain the conviction cannot be con-
S. W. 221.

sidered.-Castenara v. State, 156 S. W. 1180.
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) On appeal in a criminal $ 1097 (Tex.Or. App.) Assignments of error as
case, where the indictment, charge, judgment, to instructions and the insufficiency of the evi-
and sentence were in proper form, there were dence to support the conviction cannot be con-
no questions open for consideration, in the ab- sidered, in the absence of a statement of facts.
sence of a bill of exceptions or statement of - Jackson v. State, 156 S. W. 1183.
facts.-Hooper v. State, 156 S. W. 221.

8 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where defendant
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) The matters presented convicted at a term of the county court which
as grounds for a new trial in a criminal case adjourned January 4th, bis statement of facts
could not be reviewed or revised, where the rec- filed February 3d was too late; the 30-day
ord contained neither a statement of facts nor time for filing statements of facts not applying
a bill of exceptions.-Hooper v. State, 156 S. to the county court, but where an order of
W. 221.

court allows any time after adjournment in
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Alleged objectionable and which to file a statement of acts the limit of
injurious remarks of the district attorney could such time is 20 days.-Hall v. State, 156 S. W.
not be reviewed, where they were not verified 644.
in any manner or perpetuated by bills of excep-

$ 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) A statement of facts
tion.-Shornweber v. State, 156 S. W. 222.

filed after sentence, entered nunc pro tunc at
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Assignments of error to a term subsequent to the term at which convic.
the selection of a special venire cannot be con- tion was had, cannot be considered on appeal.
sidered where no bills of exception were reserv- -Kinch v. State, 156 S. W. 649.
ed.-Asbeck v. State, 156 S. W. 925.

§ 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Statement of facts not
A recitation in the judgment that accused filed until more than 20 days had expired after
excepted to the action of the court in refusing the adjournment of the term at which accused
to quash a special venire is not sufficient to was convicted will not be considered on ap-
take the place of a bill of exception thereto. peal.-Gibbs v. State, 156 S. W. 687.

Where accused's statement of facts was not
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) A ground alleged in a filed in time owing solely to the fault of the
motion for new trial, not verified by a bill of trial judge, the statement filed out of time and
exceptions or evidence, cannot be considered. - admitted to be correct will be considered.-Id.
Schneider v. State, 156 S. W. 944.

$ 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where a statement of
8 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) On appeal in a crimi- facts was neither approved by the trial judge
nal case, where the record contains neither a nor filed within the time required by law, it
bill of exceptions nor a statement of facts, the cannot be considered for any purpose. -San-
motion for a new trial presents nothing that ders v. State, 156 S. W. 927.
can be reviewed.- Washington v. State, 156 S. 8 1099 (Tex.Cr.App.) Testimony heard on the
W. 1172.

question whether the jury discussed defendant's
$ 1090 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where there is no bill failure to testify before arriving at their ver-
of exceptions showing that the prosecuting at. dict, not filed until after term time, cannot be
torney used the remarks alleged in the special considered on appeal.-Pullen v. State, 156 S.
charge, the question is not so presented as to be W. 935.
reviewable.-Holmes v. State, 156 S. W. 1172. $1101 (Tex.Cr.App.) Where the only ground

$ 1090 (Tex.Cr. App.) The denial of a motion in the motion for new trial was the insuffi-
for a new trial because of the admission of al- ciency of the evidence, a conviction must be af-
leged erroneous evidence could not be reviewed, firmed on appeal, in the absence of a statement
where the record contained no bills of excep- of facts.-Francis v. State, 156 S. W. 1167.
tion verifying such matters, and there was

8 1105 (Tex.Cr. App.) A transcript, not cer-
nothing in the record to show that evidence tified by the official stenographer, not signed
was admitted, other than as stated in the mo- by the attorneys who tried the case, and not
tion.-Clifton v. State, 156 S. W. 1179.

approved by the trial judge, cannot be consid-
$ 1091 (Tex.Cr.App:) A bill of exceptions on ered on appeal for any purpose.-Wright v.
appeal from a conviction complaining of the State, 156 S. W. 624.
sustaining of an objection to a question asked

81106 (Tex.Cr.App.), Transcripts are required
prosecutor on cross-examination as to whether
accused had not brought a civil action for the to be made up and filed in this court at once
possession of the alleged stolen property be- upon adjournment of the trial court.-Walker

v. State, 156 S. W. 206.
fore the indictment was insufficient, where it
merely showed that, if prosecutor had testified

$ 1106 (Tex.Cr.App.) Accused having been
he would have stated that the civil action was convicted at a term lasting more than 8 weeks,
still pending.-Haley v. State, 156 S. W. 637. and no bills of exception or statement of facts

having been filed, though more than 90 days
$ 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) Bills of exception not have passed since the overruling of the mo
filed until more than 20 days had expired after tion for a new trial and the pronouncing of
the adjournment of the term at which accused sentence, the judgment will be affirmed.-Car-
was convicted will not be considered on ap- den v. State, 156 S. W. 683.
peal.-Gibbs v. State, 156 S. W. 687.

81106 (Tex.Cr.App.) Under White's Ann.
$ 1092 (Tex.Cr.App.) A bill of exceptions Code Cr. Proc, arts. 895-902, a transcript in a
without the approval of the the trial judge, ver criminal appeal cannot be considered where
ified by his signature, cannot be considered on

more than 90 days have elapsed between the
appeal.-Nunez v. State, 156 S. W. 933.

trial and the time of filing.-Francis v. State,
$ 1093 (Tex.Cr.App.) In a prosecution for 156 S. W. 1167.
a homicide with a pistol, a bill of exceptions Where attorneys of persons convicted of crime
held to sufficiently present for review the ques- nrevent the filing of the transcript within the
tion of the competency of opinion evidence as 90 days fixed by law, the appeal will, in the
to the way the balls entered and left deceased's absence of good reason shown, be dismissed.
body.-Roberts v. State, 156 S. W. 651.

$ 1097 (Tex.Cr. App.) Alleged error in refus- 81111 (Tex.Cr.App.) Accused, who accepts
ing new trial on the ground that the verdict bills of exceptions as qualified by the judge, is
is contrary to the law and the evidence cannot bound thereby.-Haley v. State, 156 S. W. 637.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »