Case ID: sw_294/html/0214-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BRYANT v. STATE.
    (No. 10767.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 9, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied May 11, 1927.
    1. Criminal law <g=»l099(6) — Statement of facts filed after expiration of statutory' period for filing cannot be considered on appeal.
    Statement of facts, filed 10 days after expiration of time allowed by statute for filing it, cannot be considered on appeal, in. prosecution for transporting liquor.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    2.'Criminal law <&wkey;1128(4) — Appellate court cannot permit attack on regularity of conduct of trial by ex parte affidavits.
    On appeal in prosecution for transporting liquor, court cannot accept or permit attack on regularity of conduct of trial by ex parte affidavits.
    3. Criminal law <&wkey;»l099(7) — Appellate court cannot consider statement of facts filed too late in criminal case, unless failure was result of official’s wrongdoing.
    On appeal in prosecution for transporting liquor, statement of facts which was filed too late cannot be considered, notwithstanding that failure was through no fault of defendant, unless it was result of wrongdoing of some one officially connected with preparation and filing of such statement.
    Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
    Jim Bryant was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. T. Miller, of Amarillo, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Rob.t. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for transportation of intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

Our attention is called by the state’s attorney to the fact that the, statement of facts was filed ten days after the expiration of the time allowed by statute for filing same. It is urged that we cannot consider same. The contention of the state appears in accord with the 'facts.

Six bills of exception appear in the transcript, each of which has been examined, but the materiality and propriety of the matter contained in each cannot be appraised by us, in the absence of a statement of facts. The bills are qualified in each instance and present no error. One of said bills asserts that a juror was taken upon the case who expressed prejudice against appellant after his selection on the jury. If any facts were heard by the court relating to this matter when it came before him in connection with the motion for new trial, same were in no way preserved or brought here.

Binding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The fact that the statement of facts was filed too late, as stated in our former opinion, is not denied. Appellant files with this record certain correspondence, also the ex parte affidavits of two of the jurors who sat in this case. Said correspondence subgests no misconduct or fault on the part of any of the officers of the trial court, causing or contributing to the failure of appellant to file' his statement of facts within the time required by law. We cannot accept or permit an attack upon the regularity of the conduct of a trial by éx parte affidavits. If appellant, through no fault of his, failed to have his record in condition as required by statute, this is to be regretted; unless, however, it be shown that such failure was through no lack of diligence on the part of appellant, and was the result of the wrongdoing of some one officially connected with the preparation and filing of such statement of facts, we would not be authorized to consider same.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

MORROW, P. J., not sitting. 
      <§=3For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes