Case Name: GUTIERREZ v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-05-06
Citations: 272 S.W. 780
Docket Number: No. 8832
Parties: GUTIERREZ v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 780–781

Head Matter:
GUTIERREZ v. STATE.
(No. 8832.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
May 6, 1925.
Rehearing Denied June 3, 1925.)
I. Criminal law <&wkey;I099(5) — Statement of facts not considered, if filed .too late.
Statement of facts, filed after adjournment of trial court, will not be considered.
¿^Criminal law <®=5l 144(18) — Absence of statement of facts creates presumption that frial court acted correctly.
The Court of Criminal Appeals will, in the absence of a statement of facts, presume that the trial court acted correctly in overruling motion for a new trial.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;396(2) — Whole of examining trial testimony admissible by state, where accused introduced part.
Where, on a trial for assault with intent to murder, the defense sought to impeach a witness by introducing excerpts from his examining trial testimony and from a written statement made on the night of the shooting, under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 811, state may introduce whole of that testimony and statement as explanatory of such excerpts.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;857(2) — Comment in jury room regarding accused held harmless error.
Where the alleged misconduct of the jury consisted in referring, during deliberation, to a former conviction of accused, and whether sentence then served would be deducted, held such remarks were casual, not constituting reversible error, as testimony of jurors satisfied the court that the verdict had not been influenced thereby.'
5. Criminal law <&wkey;l 160 — Trial court’s decision on motion for rehearing final, unless in abuse of discretion.
Where, on a motion for new trial, conflicting evidence was introduced, the judgment of ■the trial court will not be disturbed, unless there was an abuse of discretionary powers.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; W. D. 1-Iowe, Judge.
Eduardo Gutierrez was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 327, 257 S. W. 889.
E. B. Elfers, of El Paso, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
B-ERRV, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of El Paso county for the offense of assault with intent to murder, and his punishment assessed fit five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
There are two bills ,of exceptions in the record. The first complains of the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial because of certain alleged misconduct of the jury. The record in- this case shows that the court adjourned on the 4th 'day of April, 1924, and the statement of facts on the motion for new trial was not filed, according to the file mark thereon, in, the district court of El Paso county until the 5th day of April, 1924, or one day after the court had adjourned. Under this state of the record the statement of facts cannot be considered, and this court will presume, that the trial court acted correctly in overruling the motion for a new trial.
By bill of exception No. 2 complaint is made of the action of the trial court in permitting the state to introduce in evidence the whole of the examining trial testimony of the witness Augustine Bustamente and the whole of the written statement made by said witness to the county attorney on the night of the shooting. The bill of exception shows that the defendant, for the purpose of impeaching said witness, offered in evidence and read to the jury certain excerpts and statements from the examining trial testimony of said witness, and also from the written statement made by said witness to the county attorney on the night of the shooting. We have very carefully examined the examining trial testimony and the written statement introduced in evidence, and have reached the conclusion that it was entirely proper for the court to admit all of the testimony of the witness given on the examining trial, and also his 'full statement to the county attorney, because same were germane to that portion of said testimony and said statement that was introduced in evidence by the appellant. Article 811, Vernon's Oode of Criminal Procedure, and authorities there cited.
, Binding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
<gc=>Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered-Digests and Indexes