Case Name: RAMOS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1913-10-22
Citations: 160 S.W. 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: RAMOS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 160
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
RAMOS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 22, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal—Record— Matters Reviewable.
The denial of a motion for a new trial, on the grounds that the court erred in submitting murder in the first degree and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, could not be reviewed, in the absence of bills of exception and statements of fact.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, 2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1120*) — Appeal—Record— Matters Review able.
The ineompetency of a witness to testify •could not be reviewed, where no evidence as to his ineompetency accompanied the record.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2931-2937; Dec. Dig. § 1120.*]
Appeal from District Court, Hardin County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.
Simon Ramos was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
No bill of exception or statement of facts accompanies the record, and no ground is assigned in the motion for a new trial we can review, in the absence of a statement of facts. The first ground in the motion is that the court erred in submitting the issue •of murder in the first degree, and another is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. All understand that with no evidence before us we cannot review these •questions.
The only other ground in the motion for a new trial is that the witness John Salter was incompetent to testify. No evi•dence as to his ineompetency accompanies the record.
The judgment is affirmed.