Case ID: sw2d_2/html/0274-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MARTIN, J. MORROW, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GREEN v. STATE.
    (No. 11215.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 14, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1928.
    !. Burglary <&wkey;42(I)— Unexplained recent possession of stolen property from burglarized premises is sufficient to support conviction of burglary.
    Unexplained recent possession of stolen property obtained from burglarized premises is sufficient to support conviction for burglary.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>l090(l9) — Admissibility of evidence cannot be reviewed on motion to strike and order overruling motion with notation of appellant’s exception, but can be presented for review only by bill of exceptions (Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 667).
    Admissibility and competency of evidence cannot be reviewed in Court of Criminal Appeals where record shows only motion to strike and order overruling motion with notation of appellant’s .exception, but such question can be presented for review only by proper bill of exceptions, under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 667.
    3. Arrest &wkey;>7l — Right of arrest generally carries with it right to search without search warrant.
    Right of arrest carries with it generally right to search without search warrant.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;-l090(l9) — Recital in order overruling motion to strike tesitmony of exception to court’s, action will not take place of bill of exceptions.
    Recital of exception to court’s action in an order overruling motion to strike testimony from record after its reception will not take place of bill of exceptions.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    5. Criminal law <&wkey;4092(l) — Statutory method for filing bills of exception to admission or exclusion of evidence is only way in which áction of court in refusing to exclude evidence can be reviewed (Rev. St. 1925, art. 2237).
    Rev. St. 1925, art. 2237, prescribing rules for preparation and filing of bills of exception and requiring bill of exception to admission or exclusion of evidence to be presented to trial judge within time allowed by law setting forth evidence in substance, stating that it was received, that motion was made to exclude it, grounds of motion on' which exclusion was sought, and ruling of court, is only way in which action of court in refusing to exclude evidence can be brought up for review.
    6.Criminal law <&wkey;>l090(8) — Objection to evidence may be waived by either party, and propriety of receiving evidence cannot be reviewed without bill of exceptions (Code Cr. Proc.
    1925, art. 667).
    Slither party to trial is privileged to waive any objection to evidence, and, where there is no bill of exception either to receipt of evidence or to refusal to exclude it, record is in no condition to invoke judgment of reviewing court on propriety of received evidence, under Code Cr. Proc. 1925, art. 667, requiring bill of exceptions.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Uvalde County ; L. J. Bracks, Judge.
    Burt Green, alias J. C. Douglas, was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    G. B. Feniey, of Uvalde, and A. D. Dove, of Austin, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   MARTIN, J.

Offense, burglary; penalty, 6 years in the penitentiary.

One John D. Sutherland owned and operated a little store at Montell, in Uvalde county. On Saturday night November 6, 1926, his store was burglarized. On the next night appellant was arrested in the town Uvalde, and some of the stolen goods from said burglarized store was found in his possession and identified by Sutherland and his wife. There is no explanation shown in the record of appellant’s possession of these goods. Unexplained recent possession of stolen property obtained from burglarized premises is sufficient to support a conviction of burglary. Rippey v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 539, 219 S. W. 463. The evidence was sufficient in our opinion to sustain the verdict rendered.

Evidence was introduced by the state that, officers of Uvalde county arrested the appellant on the street, took from his person a pistol and other articles, and that appellant fled and was shot by said officers, and also that appellant while under arrest gave them the location of his car, and that such car was searched and certain articles found therein. Motion was made by appellant to strike this testimony from the_ record after its reception, and an order was made and entered on the minutes of the court overruling this motion and which contains an exception to such action on the part of the court.

We are met at the outset with the question of whether or not the admissibility and competency of evidence can he thus raised. We are of the opinion that such a question can be presented for review only by a proper bill of exception. Statements from some of the authorities which lay down certain fundamental prerequisites, under article 667, 0. C. P. 1925, for the review of the action of trial courts, will, we think, demonstrate the soundness of our holding:

There is a presumption that the lower court ruled correctly, and bills of exceptions must negative this and show material error. Morgan v. State, 82 Tex. Cr. R. 615, 201 S. W. 654.

The bill of exception must furnish sufficient information touching the antecedent and surrounding facts to enable the court to determine its merit. Rutherford v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 310, 277 S. W. 669; Sid Patterson v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 682, 282 S. W. 219.

The court will not look to the statement of facts or other parts of the record to ascertain whether or not the error complained of occurred, but in order for appellant to avail himself of the alleged error, it must be manifest from the bill itself and the attendant circumstances must be set out so fully that the court can ascertain from the bill without recourse to the record or statement of facts that the alleged error occurred as complained of. Peasley v. State, 102 Tex. Cr. R. 492, 278 S. W. 440; Sparks v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 553, 271 S. W. 631; Canter-berry v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 550, 275 S. W. 1040.

Truth of the objection must be verified by the bill. The mere statement of the grounds set forth in the bill is not the certificate, of the trial judge that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true. Plimk v. State, 98 Tex. Cr. R. 140, 265 S. W. 158; Murff v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 617, 281 S. W. 1076.

A bill which sets out evidence, a part of which is admissible, presents no error, when blanket objection is made. Zweig v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 306, 171 S. W. 751; Aven v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 177 S. W. 82.

The appellant must bring forward each ground of complaint upon which he relies for reversal by separate bills of exception, and joining several matters in one bill is viola-tive of the rule, and bills of exception which bring forward two or more grounds of complaint in a single bill will not be considered by the court. Nugent v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 273 S. W. 598; Reto v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 143 S. W. 184; Cabral v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 122 S. W. 872.

.The matter as.presented violates almost all of the above rules.

If the attendant facts and circumstances surrounding this matter had been set out as required by the rules, it might have been shown that the officers had the right to arrest appellant. The right of arrest carries with it generally the right to search without a search warrant. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 46 S. Ct. 4, 70 L. Ed. 145, 51 A. L. R. 409 ; Hodge v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 298 S. W. 573. A proper bill of exception might also have reflected the fact that appellant authorized a search of his car. Moreover, there are two distinct and wholly unrelated matters presented as error in the aforesaid motion.

This court has held that a recital in an order, overruling a motion for a continuance, of an exception to the action of the court will not take the place of a bill of exception. Wilson v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 542, 223 S. W. 217; Prator v. State, 15 Tex. App. 363 ; Branch’s P. C. § 304. There would seem to be no good reason for distinguishing the instant case from those announcing the above rule.

Many other reasons might be given, but what has been said, we think, is sufficient authority for the announdment of the rule that the reception of evidence cannot be reviewed in this court where the record shows only a motion to strike out and an order of record overruling such motion with a notation of appellant’s exception. Such a question must and can only be presented by a proper bill of exception.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

PER 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.

We find at page 3 of the transcript a motion to strike from the record the evidence of the officers to the effect that they arrested the appellant on the street in the city of Uvalde and took from his person a pistol and other articles; that the defendant fled and was shot by the witness Miller and retained in custody of the officers. .The motion is based upon the ground that the evidence was not admissible in the absence of a search warrant, and that, there being no search warrant, the evidence was obtained in violation of articles 4 and 4a, C. C. P. 1925, and received in violation of article 727a, C. C. P. 1925. This document bears no authentication of the trial judge. On the minutes of the court there is indorsed an order overruling the motion in which it is said, “The defendant then and there excepted in open court.” At what stage of the trial this motion was presented and acted on is not disclosed by the proceeding upon which it is sought to have this court review the action of the trial court. In article 2237, Rev. Civil Stat. 1925, the following.statement is found:

“If either party during the progress of a cause is dissatisfied with any ruling, opinion, or other action of the court, he may except thereto at the time the said ruling is made, or announced or such action taken, and at his request time shall be given to embody such exception in a written bill. The preparation and filing of bills of exception shall be governed by the following rules:”

In nine subdivisions of the article, the requisites of a bill of exceptions and the procedure with reference to its preservation and allowance are set'forth. Where the ruling of the court is on the admission of evidence or the refusal to exclude it, the statute requires that a bill of exceptions, in writing, shall be presented to the trial judge within the time allowed by law in which it shall set forth the evidence in substance, stating that it was received, that a motion was made to iexelude it, the grounds of the motion upon which the exclusion was sought, and the ruling of the court thereon. When the bill is presented to the judge, he has the opportunity to either allow the bill or file one of his own which would set up the facts true to the record. So far as we are aware, this is the only way in which the action of the court in refusing to exclude evidence can be brought up for review. This is made manifest by the many decisions of this court which are collated in Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. 0., §§ 207-219; also in Vernon’s Ann. Tex. C. C. P. 1925, vol. 2, art. 667, note 22, p. 362. See, also, Bargas v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 231, 216 S. W. 173; Wilson v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 223 S. W. 217; Williams v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 60, 249 S. W. 852; Abbott v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 31, 250 S. W. 188; Martin v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 124, 242 S. W. 234; Madsen v. State, 95 Tex. Cr. R. 439, 254 S. W. 955; Bailey v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 237, 275 S. W. 1014; Reid v. State, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 147, 287 S. W. 269. Either party is privileged to waive any objection to evidence, and where there is no bill of exceptions either to the receipt of evidence or to the refusal to exclude it, the record is in no condition to invoke a judgment of the reviewing court on the propriety of its receipt. The statute is definite .in requiring that the matter be presented by a bill of exceptions. See article 667, C. C. P. 1925, supra.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      <®s>3Tor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER. in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes