Case Name: Eugene English v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1960-03-23
Citations: 170 Tex. Crim. 56
Docket Number: No. 31,766
Parties: Eugene English v. State
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Eugene English v. State
No. 31,766.
March 23, 1960
Motion for Rehearing Overruled June 8, 1960
Second Motion for Rehearing Overruled October 12, 1960
Charles W. Tessmer, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Criminal District Attorney, Frank Watts, Thomas B. Thorpe, Phil Burleson, Assistants District Attorney, Dallas, and Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
The offense is murder; the punishment, 10 years.
It is undisputed that appellant shot and killed the deceased. Appellant's plea of self defense was rejected by the jury, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their veridct. The question of the competency of the witness Lue Bertha Russell appears to have been waived when she was permitted to testify with no objection as to competency. Parris v. State, 320 S.W. 2d 853.
Appellant's complaint as to argument cannot be appraised because not properly before us in a bill of exception. Appellant submitted his bill to the trial court on December 8, 1959; he qualified the same, and appellant excepted to such qualifications but did nothing further. We have recently in two cases (Wortham v. State, No. 31,529, 169 Tex. Cr. Rep. 164, 333 S.W. 2d 158 and Willie v. State, No. 31,614, 169 Tex. Cr. Rep. 393, 334 S.W. 2d 159, had before us for consideration the recent amend ment of Article 760d, V.A.C.C.P. In the amendment no provision is made for a trial judge to file his own bill of exception in a case, and no necessity exists for such a bill. The amendment as written clearly provides that if dissatisfied with the court's reasons for not approving his bills of exception, the defendant must resort to bystanders' bills or he will have none.
Finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.