Case Name: Sterling Gray v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-29
Citations: 100 Tex. Crim. 195
Docket Number: No. 8860
Parties: Sterling Gray v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 195–199

Head Matter:
APRIL, 1925.
Sterling Gray v. The State.
No. 8860.
Delivered April 29, 1925.
Rehearing denied May 27, 1925.
1. —Manslaughter—Bills of Exception — Question and Answer Form — Not Considered.
Where a bill of exception in the record is in question and answer form, under Art. 846, Code of Criminal procedure we cannot consider same. This rule has been so long announced and followed, and so very many cases have been handed down by us reiterating it, that it seems to us, that trial lawyers should all understand and observe it, in preparing their cases fpr appeal.
2. - — Same—Charge of Court — On Circumstantial Evidence — Properly Refused.
It has often been held by this court that only when the inculptory evidence, is wholly circumstantial, that a charge as to that character of evidence is demanded, and where the defendant has admitted that he killed the deceased such a charge is not required. It is also the rule that if the facts proven are in such close juxtaposition to the main fact to be proven, as to be equivalent to direct testimony a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required. There was no error in failing to charge on circumstantial evidence in this case. Following Heard v. State, 24 Tex. Grim. App. Ill and other cases cited.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Continuance—Bills of Exceptions.
The complaint of the refusal of a continuance cannot be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions. Following Nelson v. State, 1 Tex. Grim. App. 41, and numerous earlier cases therein cited. Many subsequent cases are collated in Branch’s Ann. P. C., Sec. 304.
4. —Same—Special Charges — Refusal of — Not Considered.
Where special charges are refused, and on appeal it is not made to appear that such charges were presented to the trial court before the argument, nor that the refusal of the court to give such charges was excepted to at the time, we cannot consider the matter on appeal. See C. C. P. Arts. 737a and 743. Following Linder v. State, 94 Tex. Grim. Rep., 316 and cases there cited.
OH BEHEARING.
5. —Same—Evidence—How Objected to — And Objections Preserved.
This court cannot review the rulings of the trial court in receiving and in rejecting evidence, unless the error complained of is preserved by bills of exception; and such objections cannot be preserved in a motion for a new trial. See Art. 744, C. C. P. Vernon’s Tex. Grim. Stats. Vol. 2, page 536, note 20 Following Holloway v. State, 88 Tex. Grim. Rep. 126 and other cases cited.
Appeal from the District Court of Kaufman County. Tried below before the Hon. Joel R. Bond, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penalty, four years • in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Jno. T. Buckley, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Kaufman county for the offense of manslaughter and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of four years. Deceased was the wife of appellant.
The testimony shows that appellant went to a house at night where his wife and step-children were staying and on entering the room where his wife was found her on the bed with another negro, called in the record "Mr. Whang". "Whang" immediately opened fire and the deceased ran, and appellant grabbed the pistol out of "Mr. Whang's" hands, and upon "Mr. Whang's" running appellant began shooting in the direction he and deceased had gone. Shortly after the shooting had ceased, appellant made the statement to his step-son that he got one of them, but he didn't -know which one it. was. The next day the deceased was found a short distance from the scene of the shooting, in the corn field. The testimony further shows that the deceased was shot in the back and that her death was caused by this wound.
There are but two bills of exceptions in the record. Bill of exception No. 1 is in question and answer form, and, under Art. 846, Code of Criminal Procedure, we can not consider same. Dunlap v. State, recently decided by this court and not yet reported. We have examined the testimony contained in said bill of exception No. 1, however, and are of the opinion that it shows no error, as it seems that the very question of which complaint is made in said bill was answered favorably to the defendant, and at least was not of sufficient importance to require a reversal, could the bill be considered.
Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the action of the court in refusing to charge on circumstantial evidence. It has often been held by this court that it is only when the inculpatory evidence is wholly circumstantial that an instruction as to that character of evidence is demanded; and it has also been the universal holding that proof that defendant admitted or confessed having killed the deceased is direct and not circumstantial evidence of the main inculpatory fact, and a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required when proof of such admission or confession is in evidence. Heard v. State, 24 Tex. Crim. App. 111; Smith v. State, 28 App. 315; Guerrero v. State, 171 S. W. 733. It has also been held that if the facts proven are in such close juxtaposition to the main fact to be proved as to be equivalent to direct testimony, a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required. Dobbs v. State, 51 Tex. C. R. 629; Keith v. State, 50 Tex. C. R. 63; Kidwell v. State, 35 Tex. C. R. 264.
Following the rules above announced, we conclude that there was no error in the court's action in failing to charge on circumstantial evidence in this case.
This disposes of appellant's assignments; and, finding no error in the record, it is our opinion that the case should in all things be affirmed.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.