Case ID: tex-crim_103/html/0291-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BERRY, Judge. LATTIMORE, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. R. Carter v. The State.
    No. 9705.
    Delivered February 3, 1926.
    Rehearing denied March 3, 1926.
    Theft — Bill of Exception — Multifarious—Not Considered.
    Where a bill of exception complains of the testimony of numerous witnesses, naming them and attempts to set out briefly the testimony given by each of them, and is multifarious, duplicitous, argumentative and utterly fails to give any reason as to why the testimony objected to was not admissible, no error is shown. See Branch’s P. C. Sec. 208.
    Appeal from the District Court of Jefferson County. Tried below before the Hon. Geo. C. O’Brien, Judge.
    Appeal from a conviction for theft, penalty ten years in the penitentiary.
    
      Sullivan & Wilson of Dallas, for appellant.
    
      Sam D. Stinson, State’s Attorney, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.
   BERRY, Judge.

The offense is theft and the punishment is ten years in the penitentiary.

There is but one bill of exception in the record; this bill recites that various witnesses, naming them, were introduced on the trial of the case and attempts to set out briefly the testimony given by each of them and is multifarious, duplicitous, argumentative and utterly fails to give any reason as to why the testimony objected to was not admissible. The bill as shown in this record does not present error. See 208 Branch’s P. C.

The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict and there being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

It is insisted that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. Combest lost an automobile. About the same time appellant, under the name of Lewis, sold the car to one Simmons and gave him a bill of sale to it. Later appellant was arrested and informed the officers of the whereabouts of the Combest car and took them to Simmons’ place where said car was found. It was sufficiently identified. The evidence above set out was not contradicted. The evidence amply supported the conclusion of the jury.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.