Court Opinion

ID: 9675543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:57:07.574274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.458042
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that we were in error in refusing to consider his complaints to the indictment because it is shown in the statement of facts of the evidence adduced upon the main trial that he excepted to the action of the court in overruling his two motions to quash.
Appellant contends that such exceptions to the court’s rulings in the statement of facts were sufficient to constitute informal bills of exception under the provisions of Art. 759a, V.A.C.C.P., and 760e, V.A.C.C.P., and were therefore properly before us for review.
As we pointed out in our original opinion the transcript shows no exception to the order of the court overruling the appellant’s motions to quash the indictment.
Art. 760e, provides in part that:
“All * * * exceptions to the indictment or information, motions to set aside an indictment or information * * * motions for continuance together with any answer thereto, the court’s order thereon showing> defendant’s exception to the ruling together with a Statement of Facts, where facts were adduced in connection therewith shall constitute the defendant’s Bill of Exception; and no formal Bill of Exception need be prepared and filed. * * * .” (Underscoring added.)
The exception to the court’s rulings on the motions to quash not being shown in the court’s order thereon cannot constitute a bill of exception under the provisions of Art. 760e, above quoted.
*152Appellant insists that the exceptions to the court’s ruling on the motions to quash shown in the statement of facts are sufficient to constitute informal bills of exception under the provisions of sec. 2(a) of Art. 759a, supra, which provides in part:
“Where the Statement of Facts in question and answer form reflects the admission or rejection of testimony objected to or offered by the defendant, the defendant’s objection thereto, the evidence rejected, the court’s ruling thereon, or the said Statement of Facts shows any ruling or opinion or other action of the court, with the defendant’s objection thereto, he may except thereto at the time the said ruling is made or announced or such action taken, and such Statement of Facts shall constitute a bill of exception to such ruling, opinion or other action of the court, and no formal bill of exception thereto shall be necessary.” (Underscoring added.)
While under the provisions of sec. 2 of the above-quoted statute certain rulings of the court with the defendant’s objection and exception thereto, together with the statement of facts shall constitute a bill of exception, section 6 of the statute provides:
“This Statute shall apply to all Statements of Fact relating to any Motion heard in the case, but the facts adduced in connection with any Motion shall be filed with the clerk separately from the facts adduced bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant.”
By the provisions of sec. 6, above quoted, to constitute a bill of exception to the court’s ruling on a motion, the statement of facts of the evidence adduced in connection therewith shall be filed separately from the facts adduced upon the main trial on the issue of guilt of the accused.
The record in the instant case contains no separate statement of facts of the evidence which was adduced in connection with the appellant’s motions to quash the indictment and in the absence thereof, appellant’s exceptions to the court’s ruling thereon do not constitute a bill of exception.
We overrule appellant’s contention that the record shows that throug-h no fault or lack of diligence on his part, he has been deprived of and denied his bills of exception to the court’s rulings on the motions to quash the indictment and for such reason the case should be reversed.
*153Under Art. 760d, V.A.C.C.P., appellant had 90 days after giving notice of appeal in which to prepare and file his bills of exception. It was incumbent upon appellant and his duty to see that his exceptions to the court’s rulings were properly shown in the record. The fact that the court at the time the motions were overruled answered in the affirmative to the inquiry by appellant’s counsel “May the record clearly show our exceptions to both of them” did not relieve appellant of the duty of seeing that the record properly reflected his exceptions to the court’s rulings so as to constitute an informal bill of exception under Art. 760e, supra.
We have again reviewed the record in the light of appellant’s other contentions and remain convinced that no reversible error is shown.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.