Case Name: Mathew Tucker v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1912-06-12
Citations: 67 Tex. Crim. 510
Docket Number: No. 1065
Parties: Mathew Tucker v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 510–519

Head Matter:
Mathew Tucker v. The State.
No. 1065.
Decided June 12, 1912.
Rehearing denied October 16, 1912.
1. —Misdemeanor Theft—Statement of Facts—Transcripts.
The several stenographic acts directing that the statement of facts shall be made out by the court stenographer and not copied in the record do not apply in misdemeanor cases; in appeals from such cases from the county court, the statement of facts must be filed within twenty days from the adjournment of the court, and that court has no power to grant a longer term, and the statement of facts must be copied in the record.
2. —Same—Certiorari.
Where the appellant has made an application for a writ of certiorari in proper form and due time to perfect the transcript of the record on appeal, the same will be granted.
3. —Same—Charge of Court—Alibi.
Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the court charged on circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt, and no special charge on alibi was requested, there was no error in the court’s failure to charge on alibi. Following Jones v. State, 53 Texas Grim. Rep., 131, and other cases.
4. —Same—Requested Charge—Singling Out Facts.
Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the court refused a special charge, which singled out a particular fact, there was no error.
5. —Same—Charge of Court—Evidence—Bill of Exceptions.
Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the defendant himself introduced the testimony to which he afterwards objected when the State introduced the same testimony, there was no reversible error in the court’s refusal to withdraw this testimony by a requested charge; besides, the hill of exceptions was defective in not showing that said testimony was inadmissible.
6. —Same—Evidence—Impeaching Testimony—Bill of Exceptions.
Upon trial of misdemeanor theft, after both parties had rested the case, there was no error in permitting testimony in rebuttal and for the purpose of impeaching defendant’s witness’ testimony; besides, the bill of exceptions was defective in not showing that the testimony was erroneously admitted, and the defendant accepted the bill as qualified by the court.
f.—Same—Charge of Court—Bill of Exceptions.
Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, it appeared on appeal that defendant had accepted the bill of exceptions as qualified by the court, there was no error under article 737, Code Criminal Procedure.
8. —Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of misdemeanor theft, the evidence, though conflicting, supported the conviction, there was no reversible error.
9. —Same—Practice in the County Court—Statement of Pacts.
Where, upon appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft, the court awarded a certiorari to have certain defects in the statement of facts cured, this must not be considered as a precedent for the consideration of a statement of facts made up in violation of the rules on the subject of preparation of such statements. "
Appeal from the County Court of Travis. Tried below before the Hon. R E. White.
Appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor theft; penalty, a fine of $25 and ten days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Dickens & Dickens, for appellant.
—On question of the court’s power to modify requested charges: Coffman v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 88, 136 S. W. Rep., 779.
On question of the court’s failure to charge on alibi: Cox v. State, 58 Texas Crim. Rep., 545, 126 S. W. Rep., 886; Hernandez v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 73, 141 S. W. Rep., 268.
G. E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, Judge.
—By information the appellant was charged with the theft of seed cotton of the value of $10. He was tried and convicted in the County Court, and his penalty fixed at a fine of $25 and ten days imprisonment in the county jail.
The record in this ease does not contain a statement of facts. There is filed, however, as a separate paper what purports to be a statement of facts. It contains about thirty pages. Many of the pages are not filled out. In one place there is pinned to about the middle of the page a whole page of closely written matter, pinned with an ordinary pin. At other places are pasted other pieces of paper on which there is additional typewritten matter. On other pages there are little loose slips written on in the same way which are pinned with an ordinary pin.
It has been the uniform holding of this court that in County Court criminal cases the several stenographic Acts of the Legislature directing that the statement of facts shall 'be made out by the court stenographer and not copied in the record, does not apply. On the other hand, it has been uniformly held by this court that statement of facts in misdemeanor eases must be filed within twenty days from the adjournment of the court, and that the court has no power to grant a longer time, and that it is imperative that the statement of facts shall be copied in the record. And that unless this is done this court will not consider what purports to be a statement of facts entirely separate and distinct and not contained in the record certified by the clerk. In this case we, therefore, can not and do not consider the purported statement of facts.
None of the questions raised by the motion for a new trial or bills of exception in this case can be considered without a statement of facts.
The complaint and information being regular, and the charge of the court, verdict and judgment being in accordance therewith, the judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Davidson, Presiding Judge, absent.