Case Name: Ike Ellis v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-06-25
Citations: 85 Tex. Crim. 529
Docket Number: No. 5169
Parties: Ike Ellis v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 529–533

Head Matter:
Ike Ellis v. The State.
No. 5169.
Decided June 25, 1919.
1. —Murder—Mandamus—Transcript—Stenographic Reporter.
Where it appeared, upon appeal from a conviction of murder, that the stenographic reporter had refused to make out a transcript of his notes of all the evidence introduced upon trial, as required by statute, and the court below had refused appellant’s petition requiring said reporter to make such transcript, a writ of mandamus is issued by this court requiring him to do so. Following Ex Parte Fread, 204 S. W. Rep., 113.
2. —Same—Statement of Facts—Trial Judge—Rule Stated.
It is uniformity held by this court that a statement of facts must be approved by the judge before whom the case is tried. Following Richardson v. State, 71 Texas Grim. Rep., 717, and other cases. But this defect having been remedied the case is heard upon its mertis.
3. —Same—Newly Discovered Evidence—Affidavit.
Where the claim of newly discovered evidence set up in the motion for new trial, is not properly sustained by affidavits or evidence before the trial court, the same cannot be considered on appeal.
4. —Same—Bill of Exceptions—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, the court’s refusal to peremptorily instruct the jury to return a verdict of acquittal was proper.
5. —Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Bill of Exceptions—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of murder, the evidence did not raise the issue of a charge of circumstantial evidence, there was no error in the court’s refusal to give such charge; besides the bill of exceptions upon this question was defective.
6. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of murder, and a conviction of said offense the evidence was sufficient to, sustain the same, there was no reversible error.
7. —Same—Rehearing—Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of Court.
Where, upon trial of murder, and a conviction of said offense the record on appeal showed that there were three witnesses present at the time defendant shot the deceased, and a number of witnesses testified that shortly thereafter the body of the deceased was found dead a short distance away as the result of a pistol shot, there was no reversible error in the court’s refusal to charge on circumstantial evidence.
Appeal from the District Court of Potter. Tried helow before the Hon. Hugh L. Umphres.
Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, fiften years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
M. Cammach for appellant.
On question of circumstantial evidence; Puryear v. State, 11 S. W. Rep., 929; Schneck v. State, 76 Texas Crim. Rep., 235, 174, S. W. Rep., 357; Davis v. State, 141 S. W. Rep., 93.
E. A. Berry, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.—This
appeal is from a conviction for the offense of murder, with fifteen years in the penitentiary assessed as a punishment.
There is no statement of facts with the record. However, there is with the papers an application for a mandamus timely filed asking this court to compel the official court reporter, J. E. McGinnis, who was the stenographic reporter and as such took down the testimony upon the trial to make out a statement of all evidence introduced as required by the statute: In addition'to the petition for the mandamus itself the record clearly shows, that appellant in the proper time and in the proper way made his motion before the District .Court seeking to have the Judge to command the reporter to make out the proper report of the testimony of the case, which the court refused and to which he excepted at the time.
The petition before the district judge, as well as the petition for mandamus to this court, and to the proof is strictly and completely in accordance with the statute arid with the opinion of this court in Ex parte Fread, 204 S. W. Rep., 113. In accordance with the opinion of this court in that case, the clerk of this court will enter an order directing and requiring that said Mr McGinnis prepare a transcript of his notes of all the testimony introduced on, the trial and to file the same with the clerk of the District Court where the case was tried within fifteen clays from the date of the service of this order upon' him.
Further consideration of the case on its merits will be postponed for a reasonable length of time to await the filing in the court below of a statement of facts.
Mandamus granted requiring the stenographer to prepare and file u transcript of all testimony heard on the trial of this cause.
Mandamus granted.
LATTIMORE, Judge.
In this case appellant was convicted of murder in the District Court of Potter County and his punishment fixed at fifteen years in the penitentiary.
An inception of this record shows that this cause was tried in court below before the Hon. Hugh L. Umphres, Judge, and all'the orders on motions, bills of exceptions, etc., are signed by him, as well as the charge. We find in the record what purports to be a statement of facts signed by counsel for appellant and apparently by the district attorney and certified as correct by Henry S. Bishop, Judge of the District Court of Potter County, Texas. Under what appears to be an unbroken line of decisions of this court, we are not at liberty to consider a statement of facts so authenticated. It is uniformly held that a statement of facts must be approved by the judge before when the ease was tried. Graham v. State, 10 Texas Crim. App., 684; Richardson v. State, 71 Texas Crim. Rep., 111, Porter v. State, 72 Texas Crim. Rep., 71.
Appellant reserved four bills of exceptions none of which present error which we can consider in the present condition of the record. Three of the bills of exceptions are to matters left out of the court's charge or the refusal of the court to give a special charge instructing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty; these matters we cannot decide in the absence of a statement of facts.
We have examined the appellant's motion for new trial and find that his first ground of complaint is that the second count in the indictment upon which the State elected to prosecute, is defective in that it lacks the formal heading, and matters necessary to make the same legal. This question is well settled against appellant's contention, as the formal parts pertaining to the first count, when such count is abandoned will apply to the' second count.
The claim of newly discovered evidence set up in the motion, is not properly sustained by affidavits or evidence before the trial court. The ground that the trial court erred in refusing special charges raises matters which cannot be reviewed in the absence of a statement of facts. Nor can the objection that the judgment is contrary to the evidence be reviewed for the same reason.
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.