Case ID: sw_151/html/1055-01.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

FEATHERSTONE v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 11, 1912.)
    1. Ceiminal Raw (§§ 1090, 1122) — Appeal —Record—Matters to be Included.
    Where the record does not contain the evidence, or any bills of exception, the failure of the court to charge on a plea of temporary insanity cannot be reviewed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Raw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2940-2945, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. §§, 1090, 1122.]
    2. .Criminal Raw (§§ 1090, 1120) — Appeal-Record — Matters to be Included.
    Where the record does not contain the evidence, or any bills of exception, the exclusion of evidence cannot be reviewed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Raw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. §§ 1090, 1120.]
    3. Criminal Raw (§ 1121) — Apeeal—Rec-ord — Matters to be Included.
    Where the record does not contain the evidence, its sufficiency to support a conviction cannot be reviewed.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Raw, Cent. Dig. §,§ 2938, 2939; Dec. Dig. § 1121.]
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Robt. B. Seay, Judge.
    Massey Featherstone was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. E. Dane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder; his punishment being assessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without the evidence or bills of exception. The grounds of the motion for new trial are based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and failure of the court to charge on the plea of temporary insanity, and in excluding certain evidence as shown by bills of exception, and in not permitting defendant to introduce certain evidence. None of these objections are in any manner verified. The evidence not being before us, the insufficiency of the evidence cannot be reviewed.

The judgment is affirmed.