Case Name: R. M. (Bob) Sparks v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-11-12
Citations: 100 Tex. Crim. 553
Docket Number: No. 8190
Parties: R. M. (Bob) Sparks v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 553–556

Head Matter:
NOVEMBER, 1925.
R. M. (Bob) Sparks v. The State.
No. 8190.
Delivered Nov. 12, 1925.
Rehearing denied May 13, 1925.
1. —Robbery—Bill of Exception — Unsigned by Judge — Not Considered.
Where a bill of exceptions, set out in a supplemental transcript, complains of the refusal of the court to quash the indictment, is not signed by the trial judge, it cannot be considered by this court.
2. —Same—Indictment—Several Counts — Same Offense.
Where an indictment contains several different counts, presenting different phases of but one transaction the state cannot be required to elect, as between such counts. See Branch’s P. C. p. 233 for collation of authorities.
3. —Same—Bills of Exceptions — Incomplete—No Error Presented.
Where a bill of exception complains of the misconduct of the jury, without pointing out intelligently what constituted the misconduct complained of, and where the trial judge has heard the jurors testify, and decided against appellant’s contentions, we cannot hold that he abused his judicial discretion in the matter.
4. —Same—Bill of Exception — Question and Answer Form — Not Considered.
Appellant presents in this record five bills of exceptions, all of which are framed in question and answer form making it necessary for us to reassert that such bills will not be considered by this court.
Appeal from the District Court of Clay County. Tried below before the Hon. Paul Donald, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, two years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Cedric O. Taylor, of Wichita Falls, H. M. Muse, of Henrietta, for appellant.
Wantland, Dickey & Glasgow, Vincent Stine, County Attorney, all of Henrietta, Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover G. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge. —
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Clay County of robbery, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
One Foreman claimed that appellant, Morris and Fuller, by threatening him with personal injury and injury to his property, took from him three hundred dollars in money, and the facts in the record support the conclusion of guilt reached by the jury. Foreman testified that on the occasion in question Morris threatened to do him harm and told him that his head would come off if he did not pay them the three hundred dollars, and appellant told him that they would poison his stock if he did not pay said money. Foreman got the money and delivered it to appellant.
There is a bill of exceptions set out in a supplemental transcript complaining of the refusal of the court to quash the indictment. The bill is not signed by the learned trial judge and, therefore, cannot be considered.
The bill of exceptions complaining of the refusal of the motion to require the State to elect presents no error. The different counts in the indictment related to but one transaction and presented but different phases of said transaction. There could be but one conviction, judgment and sentence growing out of everything that was done and said at said time and place, and in such case it is not necessary that the State elect. Many authorities will be found collated on page '¿33 of Mr. Branch's Annotated P. C. sustaining this proposition.
There is a bill of exceptions complaining of misconduct on the part of the jury, but an examination of the bill fails to show that what was said in the jury room was not part and parcel of a proper discussion of the evidence heard during the trial. The bill consists of the reproduction of the testimony of some of the jurors but sets out nowhere any other facts to show how or in what manner said discussion was aside from the record or foreign to the testimony heard by the court on the trial. The trial judge heard these jurors testify and decided the issue against appellant's contention. We do not believe he abused his discretion in the matter.
Bills of exception Nos. 3, 3-a, 4, 6 and 7 are in question and answer form and cannot, therefore, be considered by us.
This disposes of the complaints -appearing in the' record, and being of opinion that no reversible error is shown and that -the evidence supports the judgment, an affirmance will be ordered.
Affirmed.