Case Name: G. W. Crisp v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-05-11
Citations: 89 Tex. Crim. 502
Docket Number: No. 6234
Parties: G. W. Crisp v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 502–504

Head Matter:
G. W. Crisp v. The State.
No. 6234.
Decided May 11, 1921.
Rehearing denied June 8, 1921.
1. —Theft—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where upon trial of theft, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Evidence—Bills of Exception.
Where defendant’s bills of exception, appearing in the record on appeal, are not complying with the rule, and were defective in not setting out the evidence objected to, and failed to state the ■ answer of the witness, the same cannot be considered on appeal.
3. —Same—Rehearing—Hearsay Evidence—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
There being legal evidence to sustain the conviction, this court would not be authorized to reverse the judgment, even though hearsay evidence should be found in the record, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, and ■ a substantial compliance with the provisions of the statute is necessary. However, the conviction in this case did not rest upon hearsay evidence, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain same.
Appeal from the District Court of Cooke. Tried below before the Honorable C. R. Pearman.
Appeal from a conviction of theft over $50; penalty, two years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
E. W. Neagle, for appellant.
R. H. Hamilton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Judge.
Appellant was convicted for the theft of more than fifty dollars worth of seed cotton, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.
It is not necessary to set out the facts in this case, but they show beyond question the appellant to be guilty of the charge against him, indeed, his own confession offered in evidence admits the guilt.
Ten bills of exceptions appear.in the record, and we regret to state that no single one of them complies with the rule, and is in a condition where it may be considered by this court. Most of them object to the admission of testimony, and wholly fail to state what the answer of the witness was. As an illustration, we refer to bill No. 4. The witness, B. F. Rawlings, was asked, "When you had the cotton weighed at Tioga how much did you have?" The bill recites that appellant objected to the answer unless he weighed the cotton himself, as it would be hearsay, and states that the objection was overruled by the court, and nowhere undertakes to show in the bill what the answer of the witness was, or whether he ever answered the question at all. The bill is also incomplete in that it does not state the connection in which the question was asked, nor the relevancy of it to the issue involved in the case. This is a fair sample of all the bills, and does not comply with any of the rules heretofore laid down by this court. In Branch's Criminal Laws of Texas, Section 47, will be found a general statement that: "A bill is defective if it fails to set out the evidence admitted, and show that the evidence was in fact not only offered but admitted in evidence before the jury." See many cases collated under the foregoing general head.
No error appearing from the face of the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.