Case Name: Sanford Turner v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-04-12
Citations: 79 Tex. Crim. 390
Docket Number: No. 4036
Parties: Sanford Turner v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 390–393

Head Matter:
Sanford Turner v. The State.
No. 4036.
Decided April 12, 1916.
1. —Assault to Murder — Statement of Facts — Rehearing.
, Where the statement of facts appeared not to he signed and approved by the trial judge and the judgment was thereupon affirmed without passing on the merit, but the cleric of the lower court by inadvertence did not send up the statement of facts, as approved by the judge, but did so after the affirmance, the case will be heard on its merits.
2. —Same—Charge of Court — Aggravated Assault — Arrest—Officers—Warrant.
Where, upon trial of assault to murder, the defendant claimed that he resisted an unlawful arrest, but the evidence showed that there was no attempt by the party injured to make an arrest or that the issue of aggravated assault was raised, there was no error in the court’s failure to submit charges on these matters, and it was immaterial whether the warrant of arrest was legally issued; the court submitting the issue of self-defense, which alone was raised by the evidence.
Appeal from the District Court of Colorado. Tried below before the Hon. M. Kennon.
Appeal from a conviction of an assault to murder; penalty, ten 3rears imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
E. Summang, for appellant.
On question of arrest: Alford v. State, 8 Texas Crim. App., 545; Earles v. State, 47 Texas Crim. Rep.,559; Cortez v. State, 44 id., 169; Sullivan v. State, 148 S. W. Rep., 1091.
C. C. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
HARPER, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of assault to murder, and his punishment assessed at ten years confinement in the State penitentiary.
The only bills of exception in the record complain of the action of the court in failing to give several special charges, requested by appellant. There is with the record what purports to be a statement of the evidence had on the-trial of the case, but it does not show to have ever been presented to the trial judge, and it is not approved nor signed by him. To be of any validity whatever, the statement of facts must be approved and signed by the trial judge. Lawrence v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 193; Bennett v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 236; Johnson v. State, 29 Texas, 492; Hurst v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 196, and cases cited under section 1169, White's Ann. C. C. P. With no statement of the evidence we are authorized to consider, we can not pass upon whether the special charges should have been given, for in the absence of a statement of facts, if the charge is applicable to any state of facts that might be proven under the indictment, this court must presume the trial court submitted to the jury the law, and all the law, applicable to the testimony. Wright v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 146, and cases cited under section 1170, White's Ann. C, C. P.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.