Case Name: MARLOW v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-10-23
Citations: 150 S.W. 610
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARLOW v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 150
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
MARLOW v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 23, 1912.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal and Error-Sufficiency op Record.
Where the record on. appeal shows no bills of exceptions or statements of facts, grounds of a motion for new trial relating to the admission of testimony cannot be reviewed.
[Ed. Note. — Por other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789,2803-2822,2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Deo. Dig. § 1090.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal and Error — Sufficiency of Record — Bills of Exception.
Alleged improper conduct of a witness for the state while testifying in a criminal prosecution cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions showing his acts.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822,2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. J 1090.*]
Appeal from District Court, Erath County; W. J. Oxford, Judge.
T. C. Marlow was convicted of aggravated assault and battery, and appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
There are no bills of exceptions or statement of facts in the record. Several grounds of the motion for new trial relate to the admission of testimony; but these cannot be reviewed, in the absence of exceptions reserved verifying the matters.
There is another ground of the motion which recites that, while the witness Armstrong was testifying for the state, in the presence and hearing of the jury, he appealed to the sympathies of the jury, and shed tears, and asked the jury to bear with him a while, as is fully shown by defendant's bill of exceptions. This bill is not in the record, and therefore we cannot review this matter.
In the absence of the evidence, we are unable to say the criticism of the charge was of sufficient importance to show error, especially in view of the fact that appellant was acquitted of assault with intent to murder under an indictment which charged that offense, and only convicted of an aggravated assault and battery.
As the record is presented to us, we are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed; and it is accordingly so ordered.