Case ID: sw_277/html/0151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, J. RER CURIAM. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LEE v. STATE.
    (No. 9329.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 21, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1925.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;1120(4) — Bill of exceptions, oompiaining of introduction of mortgage in evidence, held insufficient.
    In prosecution for disposing of mortgaged property, a hill of exceptions, complaining of the introduction of mortgage in evidence, held insufficient to show error, where mortgage was not set out.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l 120(4, 8) — Bill of exceptions, complaining of introduction of letter in evidence, held, insufficient to show error.
    A bill of exceptions, complaining of the introduction of a letter in evidence, held insufficient to show error, where the letter was not incorporated in the bill, and no facts were stated enabling the Court of Criminal Appeals to determine whether bill showed error.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;l 119(4)— Bilí of exceptions, complaining of argument of district attorney, held insufficient to show error.
    A bill of exceptions, complaining of argument of district attorney, held insufficient to show error, where bill did nothing more than set out the argument, and followed it with a statement that accused objected to the argument, and that the objection was overruled.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    4. Chattel mortgages <&wkey;233 — Mortgage comporting with descriptive averments in indictment for disposing of mortgaged goods held admissible.
    In a prosecution for disposing of mortgaged goods, admission in evidence of mortgage comporting with descriptive 'averments in the indictment held not error.
    5. Criminal law &wkey;>430 — In prosecution for disposing of mortgaged property, certified copy of mortgage held admissible.
    In a .prosecution for disposing of mortgaged property, the admission of certified copy of the mortgage held not error, in view of Complete Tex. St. 1920, or Vernon’s Sayles’ Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 5651, permitting proof of mortgage by certified copy thereof.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Felix D. Robertson, Judge.
    Frank Lee was convicted of disposing of mortgaged property, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. Frank Wilson, of Dallas, for appellant. Shelby Cox, Crim. Dist. Atty., and Wm. MeCraw, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., both of. Dallas, and Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover G. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The appellant.was convicted in the district court of Dallas county for the offense of disposing of mortgaged property and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of two years. The facts are amply sufficient to support the verdict.

By bill of exceptions No. 2 appellant complains that—

“The state offered in evidence some- sort of a mortgage alleged to have been signed by defendant, over defendant’s duly reserved objection and exception; that counsel for defendant made the following objection to the offering of said mortgage: Because the mortgage does not set out the location of the property at the time the mortgage was taken, because there is no stipulation in the mortgage stating that it was, subsisting at the time of the disposition of the property, and because the certified copy of the mortgage is not the best evidence to be introduced.”

This bill of exceptions is entirely insufficient to show any error. We have had occasion, in the very recent case of Robbins v. State, 272 S. W. 176, to state our views with reference to what a hill of exceptions should contain in order to warrant this court in considering it. In that case, we attempted to clearly state the necessary requisites of a hill of exceptions, and the bill in the instant case does not comply with any of the necessary requirements; even the mortgage itself is not set out in the hill of exceptions, and wq find in the bill no factsi stated which would warrant us in holding that error is shown in connection with the introduction of this mortgage.

By bill No. 3 complaint is made to the effect that:

“The state offered in evidence a letter alleged to have been signed by defendant which was immaterial and irrelevant, and which had no hearing on the case whatsoever, but it was used by the state entirely to prejudice the jury against defendant by unfair and disreputable means.”

What has just been said, with reference to bill of exceptions No. 2 applies with equal force to this bill. The letter itself is not incorporated in the bill, and no facts whatsoever are stated that would enable this court to determine whether or not error is shown by the bill.

We have carefully examined bill No. 4, which complains at the argument of the district attorney, and said bill is too meager to enable us to intelligently pass upon it. The bill does nothing more than set out the argument made by the district attorney and follow it with the statement that the defendant objected to the argument and that the court overruled the objection.

There being no reversible error shown by this record, it is our opinion that the judgment should be in all things affirmed..

RER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, P. J.

The motion for rehearing raises tho same legal questions that were before the court upon the original hearing.

The motion is also critical of the court in holding the evidence sufficient, advancing the theory that, in the absence of a certified copy of the mortgage which was introduced in evidence, no verdict of conviction should stand. This may be conceded, but the certified copy of the mortgage found in the statement of facts 'must be considered in passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence.

As stated in the original opinion, the bill of exceptions complaining of the introduction of the mortgage was not sufficiently specific to present any question for review. The bill is set out in the original opinion, and the mortgage is neither quoted nor described in 'the bill. However, if addressed to the mortgage, which is found in the statement of facts, no reason is perceived for holding that the court was in error in receiving it in evidence. As found in the statement of facts, the mortgage comports -with the descriptive averments contained in the indictment. The complaint that it was a certified copy is not tenable, for the reason that, as we understand the statute, the original chattel mortgage shall remain with the clerk of the county court in which it is filed, and proof of it is ordinarily made by a certified copy. See Vernon’s Complete Statutes of 1920, art. 5657. Manifestly, the bill fails to show that upon the trial circumstances arose which required the production of the original instrument.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <&wkey;>Eor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes