Case Name: Francisco Garza et al. v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1932-11-23
Citations: 122 Tex. Crim. 413
Docket Number: No. 15410
Parties: Francisco Garza et al. v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 413–416

Head Matter:
Francisco Garza et al. v. The State.
No. 15410.
Delivered November 23, 1932.
Rehearing Denied January 11, 1933.
Reported in 55 S. W. (2d) 1042.
The opinion states the case.
E. T. Yates, of Brownsville, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
CALHOUN, Judge.
The offense, conspiracy to commit the crime of murder; appellants' punishment fixed at ten years each in the penitentiary.
The record is before us without a statement of facts. Appellants filed a motion in arrest of judgment, and among the grounds set up in arrest of said judgment and by bill of exception No. 3 was that the indictment filed in this case and op which defendants were tried states no offense against the laws of this state. We perceive no merit in the motion. The indictment charged, omitting the formal parts, that "Francisco Garza, Jesus Gomez, and Dolores Maroquin on or about the 17th day of December, A. D. 1931, and anterior to the presentment of this indictment, in the County of Cameron, State of Texas, did then and there unlawfully conspire, combine, confederate and enter into a positive agreement with each other, voluntarily and with malice aforethought, to kill and murder Paula Cavazos Garza." The allegations in the indictment are substantially in conformity with the statutes defining the offense of conspiracy to commit a felony. See Wilson's Crim. Forms, sec. 703; also Branch's Ann. P. C., secs. 2677 and 2678.
Appellants in their motion in arrest of judgment and by bills of exceptions Nos. 1 and 2 contend that article 1626 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional under sections 3 and 13, article 1 of the Constitution of this state. We have examined said motion and bills and find no merit in said contention.
Bill of exception No. 4 complains of the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury to find the appellants not guilty because of the insufficiency of the evidence. We cannot pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence in the absence of a statement of facts.
Bills of exception Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 complain of certain sections of the court's charge to the jury. There were no special instructions requested, and the objections to said charge now being urged by said bills were not raised at the time of the trial by written objection to the court's charge, as required by article 658, C. C. P., 1925, but were for the first time. complained of on the motion for new trial. This was too late. See Lawson v. State, 114 Texas Crim. Rep., 65, 24 S. W. (2d) 412; Marshburn v. State, 115 Texas Crim. Rep., 523, 28 S. W. (2d) 135; Faulkner v. State, 104 Texas Crim. Rep., 378, 283 S. W., 824; Redford v. State, 98 Texas Crim. Rep., 42, 262 S. W., 766.
Bill of exception No. 10 complains of the state being allowed to ask .the defendant Dolores Maroquin certain questions on her cross-examination after she had testified on direct examination .in her own behalf. Bill of exception No. 11 complains of certain questions asked the defendant Jesus Gomez by the state after .the defendant Jesus Gomez testified on direct examination in his own behalf. Bill of exception No. 12 complains of the state being allowed to ask the witness Paula Garza certain questions .on the grounds that said questions were leading.
All of the last three bills of exception are in question and answer form and contain the remarks of the court and attorneys and are not accompanied by certificates of the trial judge showing the necessity therefor in order to elucidate the facts of questions involved, and therefore cannot be considered. Salinas v. State, 113 Texas Crim. Rep., 142, 18 S. W. (2d) 663; Kelly v. State, 112 Texas Crim. Rep., 514, 17 S. W. (2d) 460; Lindley v. State, 112 Texas Crim. Rep., 468, 17 S. W. (2d) 47.
Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.