Case Name: KNOTT v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-11-29
Citations: 247 S.W. 520
Docket Number: No. 7233
Parties: KNOTT v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 247
Pages: 520–522

Head Matter:
KNOTT v. STATE.
(No. 7233.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 29, 1922.
On Motion for Rehearing, Jan. 17, 1923.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;!09l (I I) — Bills of exception in question and- answer form improper.
Bills of exception on appeal in a criminal case which are in question and answer form are improper.
2. Criminal law &wkey;>l09l(2) — Bills of exception must present facts sustaining the proposition of error announced.
A bill of exception must present facts which of themselves sustain the proposition of error announced in the bill.
3. Larceny <&wkey;>64(l) — Evidence of taking of automobile and possession by defendant shortly afterwards sustains conviction.
Evidence showing the taking of an automobile from its owner and its possession by accused shortly afterwards, held, sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of theft.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;878(2) — Conviction under one indictment for theft and for receiving and concealing stolen property held improper.
Where an indictment contained two counts, one for theft and the other for receiving and concealing stolen property, and both were submitted to the jury, and a general verdict returned finding defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, upon which general verdict the court adjudged defendant guilty of both offenses, the conviction cannot be sustained since a conviction cannot be had for two felonies in one indictment.
5. Criminal law <&wkey;>878(2) — General verdict applicable to whichever of plural counts is supported by proof.
A general verdict may be applied to whichever of plural counts in the indictment is supported by the proof.
6. Criminaf law <&wkey;l 184 — Court of Appeals is not authorized to reform erroneous conviction of two felonies under one indictment.
Where a sentence of conviction was erroneously impo3ed on a general verdict finding defendant guilty as charged in an indictment containing a count for theft and also one for receiving and concealing stolen property, the Court of Criminal Appeals has no power under Code Cr. Proe. 1911, art. 938, to reform and correct the judgment, there being no way to ascertain whether the jury undertook to assess a joint punishment for both offenses or not; the evidence being sufficient to support a conviction under either count.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge.
John Knott was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded on lehear-ing.
H. S. Lattimore, of Fort Worth, for appellant.
Jesse M. Brown, Cr. Dist. Atty., of Fort Worth, and R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. ,

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Tarrant county of the offense of theft, and his punishment fixed at five years in 'the penitentiary. There is no brief on file for appellant.
The record contains seven bills of exception, an ^examination of which establishes the fact that each of said bills of exception is in question and answer form, which practice has been uniformly condemned by this court and held to be sufficient cause for refusal -to consider such bills, except in those cases wherein it becomes a material fact as to the form of some particular question complained of. «No complaint is made of the form of any particular question. Blonk v. State, 248 S. W. 375, opinion handed down November 8, 1022; Kolb v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 240 S. W. 311.
However, if the fact of said bills being in question and answer form should for any reason be overlooked by us, each of same is subject to the further objection that nothing is made to appear therein of the antecedents or surrounding facts pertinent to the objections made, and from which this court might obtain any light upon the proposition embraced in the objection. It is uniformly held by this court that to entitle a bill of exceptions to consideration such bill must present facts which of themselves sustain the proposition of error announced in the bill.
The indictment appears to be in regular form, and the charge of the court was so acceptable to appellant as that he presented no exceptions thereto. The evidence shows the taking of an automobile from its owner in Tarrant county and its possession by apr pellant shortly thereafter. The facts sufficiently support the verdict.
No error appearing in the record, the judgment o'f the trial court will be affirmed.
Foother cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes