Case Name: ANAYA v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-10-15
Citations: 215 S.W. 302
Docket Number: No. 5446
Parties: ANAYA v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 215
Pages: 302–302

Head Matter:
ANAYA v. STATE.
(No. 5446.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 15, 1919)
1. CRIMINAR LAW <&wkey;1097(5) — INSTRUCTIONS NOT REVIEWABLE WITHOUT STATEMENT OE FACTS.
Without the statement of facts, a ruling of the court with reference to special charges cannot be considered.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>1120(l) — Conviction af- ' FIRMED ON INSUFFICIENT RECORD.
On appeal in criminal case, court will affirm, although error is assigned in the admission of evidence, where from the meager contents of the bills and the record it is unable to decide whether or not the evidence was proper to be introduced; the admissibility of the evidence depending upon facts and circumstances.
Appeal from District Court, Presidio County ; Joseph Jones, Judge.
Margarita Anaj'a was convicted of horse theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
This conviction was for horse theft.
The record does not contain a state- • ment of facts. The charge is entirely compatible with a statement of facts provable under the allegations in the indictment. Bills of exception were reserved to the introduction of testimony, and the refusal of the. court to give special instructions. Without the statement of facts, the ruling of the court with reference to the special charges cannot be considered. A bill of exceptions was reserved to the introduction of a bill o.f sale, or an instrument purporting to be such, signed by appellant, conveying a right to one mule to the alleged purchaser, in the bill named Preston. The other bill was reserved to another bill of sale made by appellant to Harry Preston conveying one "buckskin horse eight years old." These bills are meager. The objection urged was , that same was prejudicial to the rights of appellant and calculated to unduly impress their minds with said evidence. The court signs the bill with the statement that the state's prosecuting witness, Harry A. Preston, identified both of said instruments as the bills of sale signed by defendant and by him delivered to witness to verify the sale of the animals therein named to witness. The meager condition of the bills does not enable this court • to decide why, or ascertain any reason why, the bills of sale were not introducible. Whether they were intro-dúcele or not would depend upon facts and circumstances arising during the trial or that might arise. In the condition of the bills of exceptions and the record, we are unable to say that the court erred in permitting this evidence to go to the jury.
The judgment will be affirmed.