Case Name: R. W. McCowan v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1923-05-09
Citations: 94 Tex. Crim. 357
Docket Number: No. 7704
Parties: R. W. McCowan v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
R. W. McCowan v. The State.
No. 7704.
Decided May 9, 1923.
1. —Murder—Statement of Facts — Charge of Court.
In the absence of a statement of facts an objection to' the charge of the court, cannot be considered, however, the charge is not amenable to the objections made.
2. —Same—Deadly Weapon — Intent to Kill.
The theory of defense as to the weapon used was not deadly per se and that the intent to kill was absent, having been submitted to the jury, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the District Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Honorable Eichard I. Munroe.
Appeal from a conviction of murder; penalty, thirty years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
Conviction is for murder; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of thirty years.
On the former appeal the case was reversed. (See 91 Texas Crim. Rep. 310.) On the present appeal, there is no statement of facts. Without knowing what facts were before the jury, we are not in a position to adequately appraise the .exceptions to the court's charge. The charge properly submitted the issues of murder, manslaughter, and aggravated assault, and so far as we are able to judge, is ámenable to none of the criticisms addressed to it in the exceptions mentioned.
It appears from the former appeal that appellant's defensive theory was that the weapon used was not deadly per se and that the intent to kill was absent. This phase of the case was not only embraced in the main charge, but was included in the special charge given at appellant's request.
We discern no error in the record, and in the absence of a statement of facts, we must assume that the proof supports the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.