Case Name: CRISP v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-05-11
Citations: 231 S.W. 392
Docket Number: No. 6234
Parties: CRISP v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 231
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
CRISP v. STATE.
(No. 6234.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 11, 1921.
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1921.)
I.Criminal law <3=»I09I (1)— Bills of exception not complying with rule may not be considered.
Bills of exception which do not comply with the rule may not be considered by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2. Criminal law <3=1091 (4)— Bill of exceptions to admission of evidence held not to comply with rule, and incomplete.
In a prosecution for theft of seed cotton, bill of exceptions to the admission of evidence, reciting that defendant objected to the answer of a witness to the question when he had his cotton weighed how much did he have, unless he weighed the cotton himself, as it would be hearsay, stating that the objection was overruled by the court, and not undertaking to show what the answer of the witness was, or whether he ever answered the question at all, did not comply with the rule, and it was also incomplete in that it did not state the connection in which the question was asked, nor the relevancy of it to the issue involved in the case.
On Motion for Rehearing.
3. Criminal law <@=>1090(8)— Judgment cannot be overturned for admission of hearsay testimony in absence of bill of exceptions to it.
There being legal evidence adduced on trial sufficient to sustain the conviction appealed from, the Court of Criminal Appeals would not be authorized to overturn the judgment, even though it found hearsay testimony in the record, in the absence of a bill of exceptions complaining of the court’s ruling in admitting it.
4. Criminal law <3=1091 (I) — Compliance with statute relative to bills of exception necessary.
Substantial compliance with Rev. St. 1911, art. 2059, relative to bills of exception, is necessary to enable the Court of Criminal Apimals to perform its reviewing function; the appellate court must in some authentic way be advised of the nature of the ruling, the character of the objection, the subject-matter to which it related, and the probable influence upon the result.
5. Larceny <3=65 — Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of theft of seed cotton.
Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction of theft of more than $50 wor'th of seed cotton.
Appeal from District Court, Cooke County; C. R. Pearman, Judge.
G. W. Crisp was convicted of the theft of more than $50 worth of seed cotton, .and he appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 220 S. W. 1104.
E. W. Neagle, of Sherman, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was convicted for the theft of more than $50 worth of seed cotton, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
It is not necessary to set out the facts in this case, but they show beyond question the appellant to be guilty of the charge against him; indeed, his own confession offered in evidence admits the guilt.
Ten bills of exceptions appear in the record, and' we regret to state that no single one of them complies with the rule, and is in a condition where it may he considered by this court. Most of them object to the admission of testimony, and wholly fail to state what the answer of the witness was. As an illustration, we refer to bill No. 4. The witness, B. P. Rawlings, was asked, "'When you had the cotton weighed at Tioga how much did you have?" The bill recites that appellant objected to the answer unless he weighed the cotton himself as it would be hearsay, and states that the objection was overruled by the court, and nowhere undertakes to show in the bill what the answer of the witness was. or whether he ever answered the question at all. The bill is also incomplete in that it does not state the connection in which the question was asked, nor the relevancy of it to the issue involved in the case. This is a fair sample of all the bills, and does not comply with any of the rules heretofore laid down by this court. In Branch's Criminal Laws of Texas, § 47, will be found a general statement that—
"A bill is defective if it fails to set out the evidence admitted, and show that the evidence was in fact not only offered but admitted in evidence before the jury."
See many cases collated under the foregoing general head.
No error appearing from the face of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBEIt in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes