Case Name: FLAGG v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-02-12
Citations: 153 S.W. 852
Docket Number: 
Parties: FLAGG v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 153
Pages: 852–852

Head Matter:
FLAGG v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 12, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1099*) — Statement on Facts — Sufficiency.
A statement of facts, signed only by counsel for accused and not approved by the court, could not be considered.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2866-2880; Dec.' Dig. § 1099.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 784*) — Triai^-Instruction on Circumstantial Evidence — Necessity.
Where the court gave the usual stereotyped charge on circumstantial evidence, failure to charge that the case was one in which the state relied upon circumstantial evidence for conviction was not error, though the state’s evidence was wholly circumstantial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1883-1888, 1922,1960; Dec. Dig. § 784.*]
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Barry Miller, Judge.
Ben Flagg, alias John Rainey, was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. B. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, P. J.
The statement of facts shows to have been signed only by counsel for the appellant, and is not approved by the judge. The evidence, therefore, cannot be considered.
There is one bill of exceptions in the record, which recites that the case is one of circumstantial evidence,' and the court, in charging upon this, gave the usual stereotyped charge, but nowhere told the jury the case at bar was one upon which the state relied, upon circumstantial evidence, for a conviction. So far as this phase of the case is concerned, we are of the opinion that this was not error. While it would be better for the court to inform the jury, when he gives a charge on circumstantial evidence, yet it is not necessary to do so. The jury would understand, by reason of the fact that the court charged on circumstantial evidence, that that was a part of the law of the case, and that the case was one of circumstantial evidence. For collation of authorities see Branch's Grim. Law, § 204.
The other questions, in the absence of the evidence, cannot be considered.
As the record is presented, the judgment will be affirmed.