Case ID: sw_135/html/0127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVIDSON, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 22, 1911.)
    Criminal Law (§ 1090) — Appeal and Er-kob — Scope op Review.
    Where, on appeal in a criminal prosecution, there is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions, and the ground for a motion for new trial is the refusal to strike out the evidence of a witness because be was an ex-convict, and there is no verification in the record of that statement, the objection and the ground of such motion that the evidence is insufficient will not be considered.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2804, 2862; Dec. Dig. § 1090.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; Norman G. Kittrell, Acting Judge.
    John Williams was convicted of burglary, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Lane. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

This conviction was for burglary; the punishment being assessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary. The record is before us without a statement of the facts or bills of exception.

The first ground of the motion for new trial is based upon the statement that the .court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to strike out the evidence of a witness by the name of Rainey, because the witness was an ex-convict, and therefore not competent to testify. There is no verification in the record of that statement. There is nothing before the court in regard to the matter, except this ground of the motion.

The second ground of the motion is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The statement of facts is not before us. •

The judgment is affirmed.