Case Name: Jack Canterberry v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1925-06-03
Citations: 101 Tex. Crim. 550
Docket Number: No. 9178
Parties: Jack Canterberry v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 550–553

Head Matter:
Jack Canterberry v. The State.
No. 9178.
Delivered June 3, 1925.
Rehearing Denied October 21, 1925.
1. —Murder—Bill of Exception — Incomplete—No Error Presented.
Where on a trial for murder, which resulted in a conviction for manslaughter, complaint is made of the admission in evidence of a confession of appellant, and his bill fails to disclose the written confession, and refers generally to the statement of facts,' such bills, as wq have long held, will not be considered. A bill of exception should be complete, within itself, and manifest the error complained of. Following Hubbard v. State, 251 S. W., 1054.
2. —Same—Continued.
Another bill complains of the action of the court in permitting the state on cross-examination to interrogate appellant concernng a sore on his leg. This entire bill is made up in question and answer form, and under Art. 846 C. C. P. this court is not authorized to consider this bill.
on rehearing.
3. —Same—Charge of Court — Inadvertent Omission — Not Fundamental Error.
Where in the submission of the theory of appellant of manslaughter, the court charged the jury that if the appellant “struck” the deceased etc., that he would be guilty of manslaughter. The omission of the words “and killed,” after the word “struck,” viewed in the light of the charge as a whole, and the submission of a charge on aggravated assault did not constitute a fundamen tal error, same not having been properly excepted to. Under Art. 743, the omission would not authorize a reversal of this case.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas County. Tried below before the Hon. Felix D. Robertson, Judge.
Appeal from a conviction of manslaughter; penally, five years in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the ease.
Callaway, Dalton & Callaway, for appellant.
Shelby Cox, District Attorney, Tom Garrard, State’s Attorney, and Grover C. Morris, Assistant State’s Attorney, for the State.

Opinion:
BAKER, Judge.
The appellant was indicted in Dallas County charged with murdering his brother, Sam Canterberry, and was tried and convicted in the Criminal District Court of said county of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.
The record discloses that there are no exceptions taken to the court's charge and no requested special charges presented. The record as presented to us contains only two bills of exception, • numbered one and two.
Bill of exception No. 1, complains of the action of the court in permitting the State to introduce in evidence the written confession of the appellant. This bill fails to disclose the written confession complained of and for much of the testimony we are referred generally to the statement'of facts. This court holds that it will not consider bills of this kind and that the bills which are presented to this court should be complete within themselves and manifest fully the error complained of. Hubbard v. State, 251 S. W., 1054, and many other decisions we would cite, which we deem unnecessary.
Bill of exception No. 2, complains of the action of the court in permitting the State to interrogate the defendant on cross-examination concerning a score on his leg. Thie entire bill is made up in question and answer form; under Article 846, C. C. P., this court is unauthorized to consider this bill.
This court in many decisions has upheld the Article, supra, and refused to consider bills in question and answer form, which doctrine is so well established now that it is really unnecessary-to cite authorities in support thereof.
We have given this record as presented a careful examination and find no reversible errors therein, and are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
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.