Case Name: GRUBBS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1915-10-27
Citations: 179 S.W. 718
Docket Number: No. 3747
Parties: GRUBBS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 179
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
GRUBBS v. STATE.
(No. 3747.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 27, 1915.)
Criminal Law <&wkey;1134? — Appeal—Bills of Exception.
The only grounds in a motion for new trial were insufficiency of the evidence and improper argument by the district attorney. The motion was not sworn to, and that the district attorney used such language was verified in no way. Held, that as the only bill of exceptions in the record was reserved to the overruling of the motion for new trial, the one question for review was the alleged insufficiency of the evidence.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2587, 2653, 2986-2998, 3056, 3067-3071; Dec. Dig. &wkey;1134.]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis 'County; A. S. Fisher, Judge.
John Grubbs was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. C. Parker, of Austin, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to commit the offense of rape on a girl under 15 years of age, and his punishment assessed at 6 years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
The Only bill of exceptions in the record is reserved to the action of the court in overruling his application for a new trial. Consequently the only ground of the motion we can review is the one alleging the insufficiency of the testimony to support the conviction. The only other ground in the motion alleges that the district attorney used certain language in his closing address'. The motion is not sworn to, and that the district attorney used such language is verified in no way.
We have carefully read the evidence adduced on the trial. There is a sharp conflict in the testimony. The little girl's evidence, like that of many other children, is not entirely satisfactory, but when we take the evidence of the other witnesses in the case, we cannot say that the jury was not authorized to believe her statement that the appellant did make the attempt. An officer swears that on the occasion in question he caught appellant and the girl in a house occupied alone by him, with the door locked and a pallet on the floor. We do not deem it necessary to recite all the evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
<fe^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBKR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes