Case ID: sw_196/html/0181-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MORROW, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GARCIA v. STATE.
    (No. 4509.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    June 6, 1917.)
    1. Criminal Law &wkey;>1144(14) — Review—Presumptions.
    In absence of a statement of facts, a charge submitting the offense stated in the information will be presumed on appeal to have charged the law applicable to the evidence.
    [Ed, Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2767, 2901, 3032.]
    2. Criminal Law <S=ol092(5) — Review—Exceptions — Time of Filing.
    A bill of exceptions purporting to preserve evidence in a criminal case on an assignment in the motion for new trial charging misconduct of the jury filed subsequent to the adjournment of &e term at which, accused was tried cannot be considered. (
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2847.]
    Appeal from District Court, Jim Wells County; V. W. Taylor, Judge.
    Manuel Garcia was convicted of theft, and he. appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the .State.
   MORROW, J.

Under an indictment for theft, appellant’s conviction condemned him to two years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The record is without a statement of facts. The indictment is regular. There are some exceptions to the court’s charge which, in the absence of a statement of facts, we must assume were not well taken. Vernon’s C. C. P. art. 743, p. 521, § 56; Ruiz v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. R. 470, 88 S. W. 808; and other cases listed in the note mentioned.

A bill of exceptions purporting to preserve evidence on an assignment in the motion for new trial charging misconduct of the jury is in the record. It seems to have been filed subsequent to the adjournment of the term of court at which appellant was .tried, and for that reason, under the ruling in Black v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 53 S. W. 116, cannot be considered. For other cases to the same effect see Tarleton v. State, 62 S. W. 748; Reinhard v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 59, 106 S. W. 128; Probest v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 133 S. W. 263; Williams v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 225, 120 S. W. 421. We have read the bill, however, and if it was in condition authorizing its consideration we would not hold that the trial court erred in its ruling.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. 
      ÉmsFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes