Case Name: HUSTEAD v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1922-10-25
Citations: 251 S.W. 1074
Docket Number: No. 6590
Parties: HUSTEAD v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 251
Pages: 1074–1075

Head Matter:
HUSTEAD v. STATE.
(No. 6590.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 25, 1922.
Rehearing Denied June 13, 1923.)
1. Criminal law <©=>1090(16) — Overruling motion for new trial not reviewed in absence of bill of exceptions.
On appeal overruling a motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed where no bill of exceptions was reserved.
2. Criminal law <©=>1099(13) — Statement of facts bled after adjournment of term of trial court cannot be considered.
A statement of facts filed in the trial ¿¡ourt after the adjournment of the term át which the case was tried cannot be considered on appeal.
3. Affidavits <©=>5 — Taking by appellant’s attorney of affidavits attached to motion for new trial is objectionable.
The taking by appellant’s attorney of affidavits attached to a motion for a new trial is objectionable.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <©=3910 — Grant of new'trial as to some of defendants does not require grant of new trial as to all, several others being under indictment.
In a prosecution for conspiracy to commit theft in which several were indicted, the fact that two defendants tried with the accused were granted a new trial on an amended motion, in which amendment the accused did not join, does not entitle the accused to a new trial; it not being assumed in the absence of an affirmative showing, that the new trial was granted because of a lack of evidence to convict the two defendants in question, since the reversal may have been for error committed in admitting evidence as to the defendants in question, and it cannot be assumed that the evidence failed to show a conspiracy between the accused and. others indicted, the cases against whom were not shown to have been dismissed.
5. Conspiracy <©=>23 — “Conspiracy” defined.
A “conspiracy” is an agreement entered into between two or more persons to commit one of the offenses named in articles 1433-1441, Pen. Code 1911.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Conspiracy.]
6. Conspiracy <©=323 —If of two conspirators one is acquitted, or evidence does not uphold his conviction, conviction of other cannot stand.
Where two persons are charged with conspiracy and there has been an acquittal as to one, or the evidence fails to show guilt as to one, conviction as to the other cannot stand, because there must be at least two persons acting together before any conspiracy could exist.
Appeal" from District Court, Wichita County ; P. A. Martin, Judge.
George JIustead was convicted of conspiracy to commit theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed. ■
McLean, Scott & Sayers, of Fort Worth, and- Chas. L. Black, of Austin, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, J.
Conviction is for conspiracy to commit the crime of theft, with punishment at two years' confinement in- the penitentiary.
Appellant went to trial on a plea of "not guilty." After the state's evidence was introduced the plea of "not guilty" was withdrawn and a plea of guilty entered. No bills of exception were reserved to any part of the proceedings, and no statement of facts adduced upon the trial accompanies the record. Appellant sought a new trial on the ground that his attorney coerced him into entering the plea of guilty. This "necessarily raised an issue of fact for the consideration of the trial court. No bill of exception having been reserved to his action in overruling the motion for new trial, we are not in a position to review the question.. What purports to be the evidence taken upon a hearing of the motion accompanies the record, but cannot be considered. The trial term adjourned July ,4, 1921. The statement of facts in question was not filed in the court below until September 2, 1921. To be considered such a statement of facts must be filed within the term. Sec-" tion 598, Branch's Ann. Pen. Code; Jurado v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 490, 239 S. W. 617; Nothaf v. State, 91 Tex. Cr. R. 378, 239 S. W. 217, 23 A. L. R. 1374, and cases cited in both opinions. We also observe that many affidavits attached to the motion were taken before appellant's attorney. This has been repeatedly held to be objectionable.
The judgment will be affirmed.
<©=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes