Case Name: Dock Martin v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-10-17
Citations: 82 Tex. Crim. 269
Docket Number: No. 4480
Parties: Dock Martin v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 269–271

Head Matter:
Dock Martin v. The State.
No. 4480.
Decided October 17, 1917.
Rehearing denied November 14, 1917.
1.—Murder—Misconduct of Jury—Presumption—Practice on Appeal.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of manslaughter, the record showed that the trial court heard evidence under the motion for new trial on account of the misconduct of the jury and overruled said motion, the presumption is that the lower court ruled correctly, in the absence of other testimony.
3.—Same—Bill of Exception—Filing—.Order of Extension.
Where the bill of exception was not filed in proper time the same can not be heard on appeal, notwithstanding the appellant secured a five-day order of extension, after the time for filing said bills of exception had expired, as the continuity of time can not be broken by such order.
Appeal from the District Court of Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. M. Kennon.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case..
W. M. Atkinson and W. H. Blanton, for appellant.
E. B. Hendricks Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
On question of filing bills of exception: Presley v. State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 102; Armstrong v. State, 60 id., 59.
On question of misconduct of jury: Sharp v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 633, 160 S. W. Rep., 369.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and given a term of three years' confinement in the penitentiary.
There were several bills of exception reserved, but on account of the fact they were filed too late to be considered, the matters expressed in them will not be reviewed. The amended motion for new trial sets up misconduct of the jury in this, that during their retirement they discussed the fact that appellant had previously served a term in the penitentiary. This is supported by the affidavits of two jurors. These affidavits are rather meager, and it is not stated in either of them that such testimony was not introduced before the jury. If it be conceded that such evidence was not before the jury, then the question is whether' or not this is so presented that it requires revision. One of the bills, if it could be considered, recites that the motion was heard by the court- and evidence introduced in support of it, but was, by the court, overruled. The judgment of the court also recites that evidence was heard. It would seem then from this bill that evidence was introduced. The record does not contain the evidence which was introduced. If heard by the court, in regard to the misconduct of the jury, the action of the court overruling the motion would not be revised unless the evidence was in some way brought in the record. In the absence of the testimony the presumption is that the court ruled correctly.
. In the light of the record as it is presented we are of opinion the judgment should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
Afirme d.
[This case reached Eeporter December, 1917.]