Case Name: Tom Mullins v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1903-10
Citations: 45 Tex. Crim. 465
Docket Number: No. 2770
Parties: Tom Mullins v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 465–468

Head Matter:
Tom Mullins v. The State.
No. 2770.
Decided October, 1903.
Sodomy—Insufficiency of Evidence.
See opinion for evidence summarized which is held insufficient to support a conviction for sodomy and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.
Appeal from the District Court of Jones. Tried below before Hon. H. R. Jones.
Appeal from a conviction of sodomy; penalty, five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The essential facts are stated in the opinion.
F. A. Arnold, Arnold & Chapman, and Dan M. Jones, for appellant.
Howard Martin, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of sodomy, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.
The main grounds set up in the motion for new trial are based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and newly discovered testimony. The statement of facts is not signed by the attorneys nor approved by the trial judge; therefore can not be con sidered. In the absence of the statement of facts we are' unable to decide either of the questions presented. In order to ascertain whether the alleged newly discovered evidence is in fact such, or that it has any material bearing upon the case, if newly discovered, we must have the evidence before us. As presented no error is made to appear, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.