Case Name: SAYLES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-24
Citations: 275 S.W. 831
Docket Number: No. 8954
Parties: SAYLES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 275
Pages: 831–833

Head Matter:
SAYLES v. STATE.
(No. 8954.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 24, 1925.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1925.)
M. B, Briggs, of Gilmer, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
The appellant was convicted in the district court of Upshur county for the offense of murdering his wife, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 99 years.
There are four bills of exception in the record complaining at the introduction of testimony by the state; none of these bills do more than to set out the testimony objected to and in a general way the objection that was made thereto. The bills are wholly insufficient to show any error; there are no facts stated which would enable this court to determine whether the, testimony was admissible or not. As illustrative, we quote bill No. 2 in full;
"Be it remembered that upon the trial of the above cause the following proceedings were had: While Maydee Nichols was on the -wit-mess stand testifying for the state, she was permitted over the objection of the defendants, to testify as follows: 'The defendant come up to the car and said, "Uncle Jess." Jess said, "Huh;" he said, "How many years did you -say your brother had put up in the pen?" he (Jess) said, "Hell, he hasn't put them up, he is putting up 25;" he said, "Well, I can put up as many years in the pen as your brother is putting up;" my husband said, "Red, you crazy son of a bitch, you better not kill that woman; if you do they are going to send you to the pen 'or break your neck."-' The above testimony was objected to at the time because it is hearsay, illegal, and prejudicial to the defendant's rights, which objections were overruled, and defendant took a bill of exception No. 2, and asks that same be examined and approved and ordered filed as a part of the record in said cause."
A mere recital of this bill will disclose that it furnishes this court with no- information that would enable it to determine the questions sought to be raised. The rule is well settled in this state that a bill of exceptions must show sufficient facts, or, in the event the facts are not fully set out in the bill, then reference must be made to particular portions of the statement of facts to enable this court tb determine from either the bill or the bill and reference that an error has been committed. •
Bill of exceptions No. 5 complains at the court's action in overruling appellant's motion in arrest of judgment. The bill discloses that many witnesses were heard on this question and their testimony sought to be preserved in the bill. The bill of exceptions was not filed during the term of court at which the case was tried, and for that reason cannot be considered.
We have carefully examined the record in the case, and it is our opinion that the appellant has been accorded a fair and impartial trial, and that the facts are entirely sufficient to support the judgment, and, so believing, it is our opinion that the ease should be in all things affirmed.
PER OURIAM.
The foregoing opinion of the Oommission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.