Case ID: sw_148/html/1088-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS et al. v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 28, 1912.)
    1. Criminal Law (§ 1090*) —Appeal — Review.
    Nothing is presented for review on an appeal, where the record shows a proper indictment and no statement of facts or bill of exceptions.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928,' 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*]
    2. Criminal Law (§ 1090*) —Appeal—Re - VIEW.
    Objections to the admission of testimony and to refusal to instruct on circumstantial evidence are not reviewable, in the absence of a bill of exceptions and statement of facts.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*]
    Appeal from District Court, Williamson County; Chas. A. Wilcox, Judge.
    Austin Thomas and another were convicted of murder in the second degree, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Chas. L. Harty, of Georgetown, for appellants. O. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   HARPER, J.

Both defendants were convicted of murder in the second degree under a proper indictment, and the punishment of each assessed at 22 years’ confinement in the penitentiary. No statement of facts accompanies the record, and, the record containing no bills of exceptions, there is nothing for us to review.

The first ground in the motion urges that the court erred in admitting testimony. In the absence of a bill of exceptions and statement of facts, we are not made aware what testimony was introduced, nor judge of whether or not a charge on circumstantial evidence should have been given, as claimed in the second ground in the motion.

The charge of the court on principals is not subject to the criticism contained in the third ground. The court did charge that, if Edmund Thomas was present, he would be guilty of the offense, but instructed the jury that, if he was present, knowing the unlawful intent, and aided by acts or encouraged by gestures those actually engaged in the offense, he would be guilty.

The judgment is affirmed.