Case Name: William Probest v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1910-11-02
Citations: 60 Tex. Crim. 608
Docket Number: No. 739
Parties: William Probest v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 608–610

Head Matter:
William Probest v. The State.
No. 739.
Decided November 2, 1910.
Rehearing Denied December 21, 1910.
1. —Theft—Misconduct of Jury — Defendant’s Failure to Testify — Statement of Facts — Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of theft appellant complained of the misconduct of the jury in referring to and discussing his failure to testify, and the record showed that the testimony with reference to this matter was filed after the adjournment of the court at which appellant was convicted, the same could not be considered. Following Black v. State, 41 Texas Grim. Rep., 18», and other eases.
2. —Same—Bill of Exceptions — Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of theft, defendant complained of the misconduct of the jury in alluding to his failure to testify, and the bill of exceptions affirmatively showed that evidence had been heard on this issue in the court below, but the same was not filed during the term of court at which the defendant was convicted the same could not be considered; besides the record showed that there was no ground for reversal on the facts.
Appeal from, the District Court of Hamilton. Tried below before the Hon. J. H. Arnold.
Appeal from a conviction of theft; penalty, two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
McLean & Scott and B. Q. Murphree, for appellant.
This court can not assume that the trial court heard evidence and found against the truth of the ground stated in defendant’s motion for a new trial because in the absence of a denial or controverting affidavit on the part of the State, the trial court was not authorized so to do. This court can only take defendant’s motion for a new trial and his affidavit attached thereto and consider them as true, and if they are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reversal of the case, the case should be reversed. Stanley v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 392; Pickett v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 68; article 821, Code Crim. Proc.; article 770, Code Crim. Proc.; Tate v. State, 38 Texas Crim. Rep., 261.
On question of jury alluding to defendant’s failure to testify: Wilson v. State, 39 Texas Crim. App., 365; Ross v. State, 40 Texas Crim. Rep., 349; Hanna v. State, 46 Texas Crim. Rep., 5; Carroll v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 485; Hill v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 646; Buessing v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 85, 63 S. W. Rep., 318; Rogers v. State, 55 S. W. Rep., 817; Beard v. State, 65 S. W. Rep., 905; Fine v. State, 45 Texas Crim. Rep., 290, 77 S. W. Rep., 806.
John A. Mobley, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State. — Gases ° cited in opinion.

Opinion:
RAMSEY, Judge.
In this case appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hamilton County, on March 17, 1910, on a charge of theft, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
1. The facts in the ease are identical in effect with those fully recited in the opinion this day delivered by Judge McCord in the case of Bowen v. State, and it would be useless to here restate them. Again, the questions, except the one we shall hereafter discuss,' raised on this appeal are identical with the questions there raised, discussed and decided, and for the most part they do not need to be noticed.
2. Among other grounds in the motion for new trial relied upon by appellant was the action of the jury in referring to and discussing his failure to testify. This matter was investigated by the court who heard the testimony touching same at length. The testimony in reference to this matter was filed in the court below on May 12, 1910. The term of court at which appellant was convicted adjourned on the 13th day of April, 1910. Since the decision of this court in the case of Black v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 185, it has been uniformly held that the provisions of our statutes, both civil and criminal, with regard to the preparation and filing of statement of facts for appeal, have reference only and exclusively to a state of facts adduced upon the merits of the case before the jury or the court, as the case may be, and that our statutes have no reference to issues of fact formed on grounds set up in motion for new trial, and that the facts as to such issues, in order to be entitled to consideration on appeal, must have been filed during the term. This rule has since been followed by this court in many cases. Mikel v. State, 43 Texas Crim. Rep., 615; Tarleton v. State, 62 S. W. Rep., 748; Reinhard v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 59; Jarrett v. State, 55 Texas Crim. Rep., 550; Williams v. State, 56 Texas Crim. Rep., 225. It is clear, therefore, under this rule that this ground of appellant's motion is not, in this state of the record, available in this court.
It should be further stated that the identification of appellant in this case was far more satisfactory and conclusive than in the Bowen case. Indeed, considering all the facts in the case, there is, in our minds, no doubt as to the satisfactory identification of appellant.
The judgment of conviction is in all things affirmed.
Affirmed.