Case Name: SIMMONS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1951-04-25
Citations: 239 S.W.2d 625
Docket Number: No. 25277
Parties: SIMMONS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 239
Pages: 625–627

Head Matter:
SIMMONS v. STATE.
No. 25277.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 25, 1951.
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1951.
Schlesinger, Goodstein & Semaan, San Antonio, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
Appellant was given a sentence of five years in the penitentiary upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder.
,T. G. Cruse and his wife were in the Gardenia Bar, in San Antonio, drinking beer. He left the table where they were sitting and left the bottle of beer in the custody of his wife. While the deceased was absent from the bar appellant, a stranger to them, came in, picked up the bottle of beer and, over the protest of the wife, took it to the bar and drank it. When the deceased returned to the bar room and learned that appellant had taken his bottle he approached appellant and requested that the beer be replaced or paid for. While the conversation between them, according to the state's evidence, was quite brief, appellant refused to either pay for the beer or to replace it. Shortly thereafter the appellant left the room and took his place in his car near the door, apparently waiting for the deceased who came out a few minutes thereafter with his wife. As they emerged from the door appellant began shooting with a pistol and inflicted a wound which resulted in the death of Cruse within a very few minutes. This was just before the midnight hour. At about 3:30 A.M. he was arrested in his home, where he turned over the pistol to the officers. This is a summary >of the state's evidence upon which the jury relied in finding its verdict.
The only complaint upon which a reversal is sought is found in appellant's Bill of Exception based on the refusal of the court to grant him a new trial. The record shows that the trial was had before Special Judge Joe Burkett, the judgment having been rendered on November 30, 1950, and signed by the Special Judge.
The amended motion for new trial was filed on December 11, 1950, and the record shows that it was heard, considered and overruled and sentence pronounced by the regular Judge of the Court, Hon. W. W. McCrory, on December 15, 1950.
The statement of facts in the hearing of the motion, which is in question and answer form, is not approved by anyone but bears only the certificate of the court reporter and the attorney. It cannot be considered both because of its form and because not approved as required by law.
The bill of exception relating to the matter contains a narrative statement of what purports to be the facts adduced upon the hearing of the motion for new trial, but this bill is approved by Special Judge Burkett and not by the judge before whom the evidence was adduced, according to the record. This bill is therefore not in condition to be considered.
The evidence relied upon by the state showed that appellant provoked a conflict between himself and the deceased; that he then left the bar room and waited in his car until the party came out and, without further provocation or warning, he shot until he had killed a man who had done him no harm. The jury believed that evidence, otherwise they would have found him not guilty. Having found him guilty on such evidence, we are impressed that they are quite modest in fixing the penal ty.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.