Case Name: CANTRELL v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1926-02-03
Citations: 280 S.W. 595
Docket Number: No. 9766
Parties: CANTRELL v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 280
Pages: 595–597

Head Matter:
CANTRELL v. STATE.
(No. 9766.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 3, 1926.
Rehearing Denied March 3, 1926.)
L. M. Ballowe, of Dallas, for appellant.
Sbelby Cox, Dist. Atty., and William Mc-OraWj'Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Dallas, Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Nat Gentry, Jr., Asst. State’s Atty., of Tyler, for tbe State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
The offense is robbery, and tbe punishment is 10 years in tbe penitentiary.
Tbe state has filed a motion to strike from tbe record tbe statement of facts. Tbe record contains 72 pages, and it is very conservative to say that at least 85 per cent, of this' statement of facts is composed of questions and answers and statements of tbe court and attorneys interested in tbe case. Tbe statute itself requires that statement of facts be in narrative form, and this court has repeatedly held that, under said statute, it is not authorized to consider a statement of facts in question and answer form. Ishamael v. State, 272 S. W. 794, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 254; Smith v. State, 272 S. W. 793, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 234; Pahlka v. State, 271 S. W. 899, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 504; Jacobs v. State, 242 S. W. 232, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 253; James v. State, 262 S. W. 500, 97 Tex. Cr. R. 612. We regret that tbe plain provisions of the statute and tbe unbroken rulings of this court construing this statute have been entirely disregarded in tbe preparation of this statement of facts, but we have no option but to bold that we are not authorized to consider tbe same in tbe form here presented.
In tbe absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to determine that any error was committed by tbe trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial on account of tbe newly discovered evidence. Without tbe statement of facts we cannot say that the alleged newly discovered evidence would or might have changed tbe result, had it been produced on tbe trial of tbe case.
Many of tbe bills of exceptions contained in the -record are also in question and answer form, and, under the unbroken rulings of this court, will not be considered for that reason. All of tbe bills relate to matters that are unintelligible to us without a consideration of the statement of facts and under tbe condition of this record showno error.
Finding no error in -the record, tbe judgment is in all things affirmed.
PER OURIAM. Tbe foregoing opinion of tbe Commission of Appeals has been examined by tbe judges of tbe Court of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the court.