Case Name: WOOLRIDGE v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-03-08
Citations: 238 S.W. 926
Docket Number: No. 6733
Parties: WOOLRIDGE v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 238
Pages: 926–927

Head Matter:
WOOLRIDGE v. STATE.
(No. 6733.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 8, 1922.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1922.)
1. Criminal law <&wkey;H44(l3) — In absence of evidence on appeal, it is presumed sufficient to support the verdict.
Where the record on appeal contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception, it is presumed on appeal that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Criminal law <&wkey;i 099(7) —Court may not consider statement of facts when not filed in time limited by statute, in absence of showing reasons for delay.
When a statement of facts is not filed in the appellate court within the time limited, it may not be considered unless sufficient reasons for the delay are given.
3. Homicide <&wkey;250 — Evidence held sufficient to support a verdict of guilty.
In a prosecution] for murder, evidence of express malice held sufficient to support a verdict' of guilty.
Appeal from District Court, Colorado County; M. Kennon, Judge.
Albert Woolridge was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Edwin A. Malseh, of Columbus, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the.State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Appellant was convicted of the murder of Emma Woolridge. His punishment was fixed at death.
Notwithstanding appellant has been condemned to suffer the severest penalty known to the law, the record is presented to us entirely barren of a statement of facts or a single bill of exception. It appears from the motion for new trial that Emma Wool-ridge was appellant's wife. The motion attacks the sufficiency of the evidence. We have no way to appraise the merit of the criticism in the absence of the evidence taken on the trial. We must presume it was sufficient to authorize the verdict. The indictment properly charges the offense of murder; the charge of the court is pertinent, and the judgment regular.
It becomes our duty, therefore, to affirm the judgment.
<©=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numb'ered Digests and Indexes