Case Name: GRAY v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-04-29
Citations: 272 S.W. 469
Docket Number: No. 8860
Parties: GRAY v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 272
Pages: 469–471

Head Matter:
GRAY v. STATE.
(No. 8860.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 29, 1925.
Rehearing Denied May 27, 1925.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;784(I) — instruction on circumstantial evidence required only when in-culpatory evidence wholly circumstantial.
It is only when the inculpatory evidence is wholly circumstantial that an instruction as to that character of evidence is demanded.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>8l4(17)— Charge on circumstantial evidence not required, when proof of defendant’s admission of committing crime in evidence.
Proof that defendant admitted or confessed having killed deceased is direct and not circumstantial evidence, and charge on circumstantial evidence is not required, when proof of such admission or confession is in evidence.
3. Criminal law &wkey;>8l4(l7) — Charge on circumstantial evidence not required, where facts proven closely related to main fact.
If facts proven are in such juxtaposition to main fact to be proved as to be equivalent to direct testimony, charge on circumstantial evidence is not required.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;l090(7) — Refusal of continuance not reviewable, in absence of bill of exceptions.
Refusal to continue a case cannot be reviewed, in absence of bill of exceptions.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;!038(3), 1056(1) — Refusal to read defendant’s special charges to jury not reviewable, where not excepted to nor charges presented before argument.
Refusal to read to jury defendant’s special charges is not reviewable, in view of Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, arts. 737a and 743, where it was not shown that they were presented to court before argument or that their refusal was made subject of exception.
6. Criminal law c&wkey;l09l (I I)— Bills of exceptions in question and answer form not considered.
Bills of exceptions in question and answer form, not shown to have been specifically authorized, are not in compliance wth Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 846, and cannot be considered.
7. Criminal law <&wkey;IÚ90(l9) — Trial court’s rulings to be reviewable must be preserved by bill of exceptions and not by motion for new trial instead.
Under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 744, the trial court’s rulings in receiving and rejecting evidence, to be reviewable, must be preserved by bill of exceptions, and motion for new trial is not a substitute.
8. Criminal law <&wkey;8l4(!7) — Instruction on circumstantial evidence not required, where direct evidence that defendant killed deceased.
Where there is direct evidence from any source that deceased was killed by accused, a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required, though intent with which homicide was committed is to be inferred from circumstances.
9. Criminal law <&wkey;>8l4(!7) — Charge on law of circumstantial evidence in homicide prosecution held properly denied.
In homicide prosecution, court’s refusal to instruct on law of circumstantial evidence held not to require reversal in view of the evidence.
Commissioners’ Decision.
Appeal from District Court, Kaufman County; Joel R. Bond, Judge.
Sterling Gray was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
John T. Buckley, of Longview, for appellant.
Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
BERRY, J.
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Kaufman county for the offense of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at confinement in tlie penitentiary for a term 'of four years. Deceased was tlie wife of appellant.
Tlie. testimony shows that appellant went to a house at night where his wife and step ^children were staying, and, on entering the room where his wife was, found her on the bed with another negro, called in the record "Mr. Whang." "Whang" immediately opened fire, and the deceased ran, and appellant grabbed the pistol out of "Mr. Whang's" hands, and,' upon "Mr. Whang's" running appellant began shooting in the direction he and deceased had gone. Shortly after the shooting had ceased, appellant made the statement to his stSpson that he got one of them, but he did not know which one it was. The next day the deceased was found a short distance from the scene of the shooting, in the cornfield. The testimony further shows that the deceased was shot in the back, and that her death was caused by this wound.
There are but two bills of exceptions in the record. Bill of exception No. 1 is in question and answer form, and, under article 846, Code of Criminal Procedure, we cannot consider same. Dunlap v. State, recently decided by this court and not yet reported. We have examined the testimony contained in said bill of exception No. 1, however, and are of the opinion that it shows no error, as it seems that the very question of which complaint is made in said bill was answered favorably to the defendant, and at least was not of sufficient importance to require a reversal, could the bill be considered.
Bill of exception No. 2 complains of the action of the court in refusing to charge on circumstantial evidence. It has often been held by this court that it is only when the inculpatory evidence is< wholly circumstantial that an instruction as to that character of evidence is demanded, and it has al-. so been the universal holding that proof that defendant admitted-or confessed having killed the deceased is direót and not circumstantial evidence of the main inculpatory fact, and a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required when proof of such admission or confession is in evidence. Heard v. State, 24 Tex. App. 111, 5 S. W. 846; Smith v. State, 28 Tex. App. 315, 12 S. W. 1104; Guerrero v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 558, 171 S. W. 733. It has also been held that, if the facts proven are in such close juxtaposition to the main fact to be proved as to be equivalent to direct testimony, a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required. Dobbs v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 629, 103 S. W. 918; Keith v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 63, 94 S. W. 1044; Kidwell v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 264, 33 S. W. 342.
Following the rules above announced, we conclude that there was no error in the court's action in failing to charge on circumstantial evidence in this case.
This disposes of appellant's assignments; and, finding no error in the record, it is our opinion that the case should in all things be affirmed.
PER CURIAM. 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.
<@=»For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes