Court Opinion

ID: 9682001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:03:18.453218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.932413
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
WOODLEY, Judge.
Having refused appellant’s Bill of Exception No. 53, and appellant having excepted to the court’s qualification of his Bills Nos. 8 and 10, all relating to the same matter, the trial court filed his own Bill of Exception No. 1 with respect thereto.
And appellant having excepted to the qualification of his Bill of Exception No. 11, the trial court filed his own Bill of Exception No. 2 relating to such matter.
Therefore, insofar as these bills are concerned, we were in error in our statement in the original opinion that appellant’s exceptions to the qualification of each of his bills of exception “does not appear to have been called to the attention of or recognized by the trial court.”
However, appellant not having resorted to bystanders’ bills, the trial court’s bills of exception are entitled to consideration by this court, and not appellant’s bills which they supercede. See 4 Tex. Jur. 264, Sec. 189.
These bills as well as other bills of exception approved by the trial court relate to the effort of the state to prove a prior felony conviction against appellant in the State of North Carolina in the year 1940, and we think fail to show err'or.
As a result of appellant’s objections, such testimony as was heard by the jury in regard to a former conviction of appellant was withdrawn by the court, and the state was not permitted to show a prior conviction of a felony against appellant, proof ordinarily admissible as affecting the credibility of the accused as a witness in his own behalf.
The voluminous record in this appeal has been examined and analyzed in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing. The transcript consists of 248 pages and contains some 55 bills of exception. The statement of facts, containing more than 400 *544pages, is replete with matters that should not have been included therein. We refer to questions asked, objections made, the court’s rulings sustaining or overruling the objections, remarks of the court and of counsel, motions to exclude testimony, the court’s rulings, and appellant’s exceptions to such rulings.
Any question raised as to such procedural matters is .required to be presented on appeal by proper bills of exception, and their inclusion in the statement of facts serves no useful purpose.
On the other hand, such matters appearing in the narrative statement of facts greatly hamper this court in our effort to glean from the record the facts shown by the evidence admitted in the trial of the case.
The law does not permit this court to resort to the narrative statement of facts to determine what evidence was rejected, or the basis of its rejection. For these matters, we look to the bills of exception.
Appellant’s contentions we have again considered, and remain convinced that no reversible error is shown.
Believing that the appeal has been properly disposed of, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.