Case ID: sw_241/html/0479-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW. P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HILL v. STATE.
    (No. 6998.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    May 24, 1922.)
    f. Criminal law <@==>1092(7), 1099(6) — Statement of facts and bills of exceptions filed after expiration of statutory period cannot be considered.
    A statement of facts and bills of exceptions filed more than 90 days after adjournment of court cannot be considered.
    2.Criminal law <@=>1091(11) — Bills of exceptions in question and answer form are insufficient.
    Bills of exceptions consisting of the transcription of the stenographer’s notes in question and answer form present no questions on appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Collingsworth County; J. A. Nabers, Judge.
    J. R. Hill was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW. P. J.

Under an indictment for murder, appellant was convicted of the offense of manslaughter; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The term of court closed on the 2d day of December. The statement of facts was filed on the 2d day of April following, which is more than 90 days after adjournment of court — too late to authorize its consideration. King v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 145, 198 S. W. 782, and authorities therein collated. The same is true of the two bills of exceptions found in the record. Moreover, they consist of the transcription of the stenographer’s notes in question and answer form. See Jetty v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 589; Huey v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 235 S. W. 887; Rylee v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 236 S. W. 744.

We will add that we have examined the statement of facts which is furnished and the bills of exceptions in the light thereof. That the appellant was the author of the homicide is established without controversy. His defensive theories of manslaughter and self-defense were presented to the jury in the main charge, supplemented by special charges framed by counsel for appellant, which were adequate to safeguard his rights and properly guide the jury in the solution of the issue» of fact.

The judgment is affirmed.