Case ID: sw_152/html/0638-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUFFMAN v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 11, 1912.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1913.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1064*) — Appeal—Motion for New Trial.
    Error in instructing on the law of manslaughter, induced by the reading by the state’s counsel of certain inapplicable decisions, should have been taken advantage of by accused in his motion for a new trial.
    [Ed. Note — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676-2684; Dec. Dig. § 1064.*]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Barry Miller, Judge.
    D. L. Huffman was convicted of second degree murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    M. M. Brooks, of Dallas, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was indicted, charged with murder, and when tried he was found guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for 20 years.

There is no statement of facts, and but one bill of exceptions, in the record. In the bill it is shown that state’s counsel read certain decisions to the court on the law of manslaughter. Under the peculiar facts in this case, had these decisions been read to the jury, and the comments made thereon recited in the bill, we can readily see how hurtful it would have been. But, in approving the bill, the court states that these were read to the court, and not the jury, and there is no statement, in the bill or elsewhere, that the jury heard the eases read or the comments thereon. Therefore no error is presented. If the court was led to have wrongfully instructed the jury as to the law of manslaughter, as applicable to the evidence in this case, by the conduct recited, appellant. should have taken advantage of it in his motion for new trial.

There being no statement of facts accompanying the record, there is no ground in the motion for new trial that would present error, in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.