Case Name: SMITH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-03
Citations: 167 S.W. 843
Docket Number: No. 3159
Parties: SMITH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 167
Pages: 843–844

Head Matter:
SMITH v. STATE.
(No. 3159.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 3, 1914.)
1. -Criminal Law (§ 1090 ) — Appeal and Error — Necessity op Bill op Exceptions.
In the absence of a bill of exceptions bringing the evidence into the record, a finding of fact of the trial court cannot be reviewed.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §| 2653, 2789, 2803-2822, '2825-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. § 1090. ]
2. Criminal Law (§ 1052 ) — Appeal and Error-Necessity op Exceptions.
The action of the trial court in overruling defendant’s application to withdraw his announcement of ready for trial and move for a continuance was not reviewable; no exceptions having been taken.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2659; Dec. Dig. § 1052. ]
Appeal from District Court, De Witt County; John M. Green, Judge.
Buddie Smith was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other eases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was convicted of murder, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.
No bills of exception and no evidence accompany the record. Appellant filed a motion to abate the indictment, on the ground that one member of the grand jury returning the indictment was not a citizen of De Witt county, and therefore a person unauthorized by law was present when the indictment was being considered and voted on. A contest of this issue was filed by the district attorney, evidence was heard by the eourt, and he finds that R. J. Poth was a citizen of De Witt county when he was impaneled and during the time he served on the grand jury. In'the absence of any testimony, we cannot review this finding of the eourt.
Appellant, during .the trial, alleging surprise, asked leave to withdraw his announcement of ready for trial, and permission- to move to continue the case. The court overruled the application. No exception was reserved to the action of the court, and it may be that the attendance of the witness whom appellant named was secured at the trial-. At least, in the absence, of a bill of exceptions to the action of the court, we cannot review the guestion.
No evidence accompanying the record, the judgment is affirmed.