Case ID: sw_280/html/0779-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARTER v. STATE.
    (No. 9701.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 3, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied March 3, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;lll4(2).
    Bill of exception, which is multifarious, duplicitous, argumentative, and states no reason why testimony objected to was not admissible, does not present error.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2. Larceny <&wkey;>55.
    Uncontradicted evidence held to sustain conviction for theft of an automobile.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; Geo. C. O’Brien, Judge.
    R. R. Carter was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Sullivan & Wilson, of Dallas, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense is theft, and the punishment is 10 years in the penitentiary.

There is but one bill of exception in the record; this bill recites that various witnesses, naming them, were introduced on the trial of the case, and attempts to set out briefly the testimony given by each of them, and is multifarious, duplicitous, argumentative, and utterly fails to give any reason as to why the testimony objected to was not admissible. The bill, as shown in this record, does not present error. Section 208, Branch’s P. C.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict, and, there being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been exam-’ ined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 'and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, J.

It is insisted that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. Combest lost an automobile. About the same time appellant, under the name of Lewis, sold the ear to one Simmons, and gave him a bill of sale to it. Later appellant was arrested and informed the officers of the whereabouts of the Combest car, and took them to Simmons’ place, where said car was found. It was sufficiently identified. The evidence above set out was not contradicted. The evidence amply supported the conclusion of the jury.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.