Case ID: sw_288/html/0454-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROBINSON et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 10642.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 24, 1926.)
    Criminal law 144(14) — Appellate court must presume instructions given were correct and that those refused were properly refused, where there is no statement of facts.
    Instructions given must be presumed to have been correct, and those refused must be presumed to have been properly refused, where propriety depends upon facts and there is no statement of facts.
    Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
    P. F. Robinson and D. H. Schuter were convicted' of possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    E. T. Miller, of Amarillo, and H. D. Bishop, of Wichita Falls, for appellants.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Appellants were jointly indicted and tried for the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale. Both were convicted, and the punishment of each assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year.

No statement of the facts proven on the trial are before us. Several objections were urged to the charge of the court, and exceptions reserved to the refusal of a number of requested charges. In each instance the propriety of the instructions given and those refused turn upon the facts developed and the issues arising therefrom. Manifestly we are not in a position to pass upon the questions without knowing what the evidence was, and must presume the trial court was correct in giving the instructions found in the charge and also in refusing those requested.

The judgment is affirmed.