Case ID: tex-crim_72/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSOH, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aaron Leach v. The State.
    No. 2863.
    Decided December 17, 1913.
    1. —Burglary—Bills of Exception—Statement of Facts.
    In the absence of bills of exception and statement of facts, the court’s ruling on the rejection of testimony can not be reviewed.
    2. —Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of Court.
    In the absence of a statement of facts, a complaint that the court failed to charge on circumstantial evidence, and as to newly discovered evidence, can not be reviewed.
    Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. Robt. B. Seay.
    Appeal from a conviction of burglary; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the ease.
    No brief on file for appellant.
    
      C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   DAVIDSOH, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary, his punishment being assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The first, second and third grounds of the motion for a new trial refer to the rejection of testimony, and can not be considered in the absence of the statement of facts and bills of exception. The fourth ground alleges error on the part of the court in not charging on circumstantial evidence. Because the evidence is not before us, this matter can not be revised. The fifth ground refers to newly discovered evidence. In the absence of the statement of facts we can not tell whether this ground presents error or not.

As the record is presented to us the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.