Case ID: sw2d_3/html/0434-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GRAVES v. STATE.
    (No. 11407.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 29, 1928.
    Criminal law <&wkey;I086(!4)— Bill of exceptions to refusal of special charges was not considered, where neither bill nor notation on charges showed exception was reserved.
    Bill of exceptions to refusal of special charges was not entitled to consideration, where it did not appear by formal bill or by notations op the charges themselves, over the trial judge’s signature, that exception was reserved, since exception must be shown by one or the other of such methods.
    Appeal from Lubbock County Court; Chas. Nordyke, Judge.
    W. R. Graves was convicted of swindling, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Jno. L. Ratliff, of Lubbock, for appellant.
    A. A. Dawson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for misdemeanor swindling; punishment being a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for 24 hours.

No statement of facts accompanies the record. Three special charges were requested and are simply marked “Refused.” It is not made to appear by formal bill of exception nor by notation on the charges themselves over the trial judge’s signature that exception was reserved to the refusal to give them. In one nr the other of such methods, it must be shown that exception was taken to the action of the court. Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 316, 250 S. W. 703, and authorities collated therein. Also, see Cunningham v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 624, 262 S. W. 491. Even if the requested charges could be considered, it is impossible for this court to determine whether they were applicable in the absence of the facts.

The judgment is affirmed. 
      
        Qz>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes