Case Name: SULLIVAN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-06-06
Citations: 254 S.W. 966
Docket Number: No. 7667
Parties: SULLIVAN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 254
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
SULLIVAN v. STATE.
(No. 7667.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 6, 1923.
Rehearing Denied Oct 24, 1923.)
1. Criminal taw <&wkey;l 144('/2) — Unless bill of exceptions shows commission of error, presumption trial court correct.
Unless there is some showing in a bill of exceptions itself from which an appellate court can conclude that error has been committed, the presumption on appeal is that the trial court was correct.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;I09l(l) — Bills of exception should be numbered.
Bills of exception should be numbered.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>il09l(3) — Bill of exceptions held to present no condition from which error ascertainable.
A bare statement of the question concerning the reputation of a witness, “Have you ever discussed it with anybody else?” and the answer, “I don’t think so; I had no occasion to,” presents no condition from which an appellate court could ascertain the merit of a bill of exceptions complaining that the answer was not responsive.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;)l09l (2) — Bill of exceptions held not to show in. what way court’s language improper.
In a prosecution for theft of cattle, a bill of exceptions complaining that the trial court interrupted defendant while attempting to give reasons why he killed the stolen animals, and that the court said, “We cannot be going into the trial of those city and justice court cases,” was insufficient in not stating what had been said, or in what way the court’s language was improper.
On Motion for Rehearing.
5. Criminal law &wkey;>l09I(3) — Bare statement of question and objection thereto, without surrounding circumstances, not sufficient to determine validity of objection.
A bill of exceptions stating the question asked, the grounds of objection made thereto, and the fact that the court overruled the objection, without stating some surrounding facts or circumstances, and without the trial judge certifying to the truth of the matters complained of, does not put the appellate court in possession of such facts as will enable it to determine the validity of the objection.
6. Criminal law <&wkey;ll 14(2)- — Bills of exception not worded so as to require examination of statement of facts.
Bills of exception held not so worded as to require appellate court to examine the statement of facts in aid thereof.
7. Criminal law <&wkey;illl4(2) — Record contains nothing bringing bills within exception to rule requiring court to refer to statement of facts in aid of bill.
Where there is nothing in the record to bring the bills of exception within the exception to the rule that an appellate court will not ordinarily refer to the statement of facts in aid of the bill, the statement of facts will not be examined.
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; E. A. McDowell, Judge.
John L. Sullivan was convicted of theft of cattle, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Houth & O’Pi el and Lamar Hart, all of Beaumont, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Jefferson county of theft of cattle, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.
Mr. Disch had a number of young calves ranging from one to four months old. He kept them at night in a pen. One Zock. also had cattle which, were mingled with those of Mr. Disch. On the night of July 15, 1922, according to the state's testimony, four calves were taken from the pen of Mr. Disch after 8 o'clock at night and before 4 o'clock the next morning. Three belonged to him and one to Mr. Zock. According to the state's testimony these calves were found a little later in the possession of appellant. They were identified and claimed by the wife of Mr. Disch, and when found in the possession of appellant he claimed to have bought them from Mr. Zock. When next seen by the owners three of the calves were dead and the fourth nearly dead, and their bodies were hidden in a thicket. Upon the trial appellant admitted that he and his wife knocked them in the head and took them out there because they were afraid they were going to have trouble over them. The question of appellant's innocent connection with the calves, resulting from a purchase of them by him from Mr. Zock, was submitted to the jury in the charge.
Appellant has a large number of bills of exception which are identical and present exactly the same question. Such procedure but incumbers the record and costs the state in its preparation. . We have carefully examined the bills of exception, and, as to bills Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, find them to be in such shape as to present nothing for our consideration. The rules have so often been referred to by this court as that they ought to be well understood. The stating of a question asked, and of the grounds of objections made thereto by the accused, and of the fact that the court overruled the objection, does not put this court in possession of such facts as will enable it to determine the validity of the objection made. Unless there be stated some such surrounding facts or antecedent circumstances as will enable us to know that the grounds of objection stated are true and tenable, this court has nothing before it in a bill of exceptions from which it could determine error. If a question be asked and a number of objections made, and this be followed by a statement that the court overruled the objection, the presumption on appeal in favor of the correctness of the action of the trial court must prevail, unless there be some showing in the bill itself from which we could conclude that error had been committed.
Appellant's bills of exception are not numbered. This should not be allowed, and we have been compelled to number them ourselves for convenience and in order to keep up with them.
Appellant's bill of exceptions No. 3 complains of the testimony of a ,state witness not being responsive to a question asked by appellant on cross-examination concerning the reputation of witness Zock. The question was: "Have you ever discussed it with anybody else?" The answer was: "I don't think so; I had no occasion to." A bill of exceptions such as this presents no condition from which we could ascertain or learn whether the answer was responsive or not.
Bill of exceptions No. 5 complains of the fact that the trial court interrupted the defendant while he was attempting to give a number of reasons why he had killed the stolen animals in question, and that the court said: "We cannot be going into the trial of those city and justice court cases." There is not a thing in the bill by which we can get information as to just what was being said or how or in what way the language of the court was improper. This is true of the matter complained of in bills of exception Nos. 7 and 11.
The evidence seems to us amply sufficient to support the conviction. The charge of the court seems fair and full, and not open to any of the exceptions reserved thereto.
We have found no error in the record, and an affirmance is ordered.
<&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and-KEr-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes