Case Name: JAMES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-02-15
Citations: 134 S.W. 699
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 134
Pages: 699–699

Head Matter:
JAMES v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 15, 1911.)
1. Sodomy _(§' 5 ) — Indictment—Sufficiency.
An indictment for sodomy, charging that the offense was committed by copulation with a woman, in that he penetrated her fundament or anus with his private parts, is sufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Sodomy, Cent. Dig. § 6; Dee. Dig. § 5. ]
2. Criminal Daw (§ 1144 ) — Appeal and Error — Statement oe Facts — Presumptions in Absence oe.
Where the only ground for motion for a new trial is that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and the evidence, in the absence of a statement of facts, the Court of Criminal Appeals will presume that the facts were sufficient.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3031; Dec. Dig. § 1144. ]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Ed Sewell, Special Judge.
Andrew James was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For ofher cases see same topic and section NUMBER, in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
Appellant was convicted of sodomy; his punishment being assessed at 10 years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. There was a motion made to quash the indictment upon what might be termed a general demurrer, in that it alleges there is no violation of the law charged. Under the authority of Lewis v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 37, 35 S. W. 372, 61 Am. St. Rep. 831, we are of opinion the indictment is sufficient. The indictment charges in this case, as it did in the Lewis Case, supra, that the offense was committed by .copulation with a woman, in that he penetrated her fundament, or anus, with his private parts.
The only ground of the motion for a new trial is that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and evidence. The statement of facts not being before us, we will presume that the facts were sufficient.
There being no error, the judgment is affirmed.