Case ID: tex-crim_71/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OCTOBER, 1913.
    Sanko Criner v. The State.
    No. 2566.
    Decided October 8, 1913.
    Forgery—Statement of Facts—Stenographer’s Report—Questions and Answers.
    Where the alleged statement of facts was a stenographer’s report of the trial1 of the case made out in question and answer form, including objections, arguments of attorneys and rulings of the court, the same could not be considered as a statement of facts. Following Hargrave v. State, 53 Texas Grim. Rep., 147, and other cases.
    Appeal from the District Court of Henderson. Tried below before the Hon. John S. Prince.
    Appeal from a conviction of forgery; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
    The opinion states the case.
    
      Miller & Miller, for appellant.
    
      C. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

The appellant appeals from a conviction of forgery with the lowest penalty prescribed by law fixed as his punishment.

There is no statement of facts with the record. There is the stenographer’s report of the trial of the case, made out in question and answer form, including objections, arguments of attorneys for both sides on the objections, the remarks and rulings of the court and such other matters as are taken down by court stenographers on the trial of the case. This, we presume, is intended as a statement of facts.

Tinder the statutes of this State and the many and uniform decisions of this court, this document can not be considered by this court as a statement of facts. Hargrave v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 147; Essary v. State, 53 Texas Crim. Rep., 596; Baird v. State, 51 Texas Crim. Rep., 322; Brown v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 269; King v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 363; Kemper v. State, 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 355; Felder v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 144; Choate v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 266. Many other eases might be cited, but we deem it unnecessary.

The questions attempted to be raised by appellant can not be considered in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.