Court Opinion

ID: 9638285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:39:45.350825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:05.297003
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant complains that our original opinion did not discuss his objections to the jury argument.
We find set out in the last fifteen pages of the statement of facts the reported argument of state’s counsel interspersed with the objection of appellant. We have refused to consider this form of presentation as a bill of exception in McCutcheon v. State, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 419, 252 S. W. 2d 175; Hernandez v. State, No. 26,624, (page 178, this volume), 262 S. W. 2d 200; and Hall v. State, No. 26,646, (page 342, this volume), 263 S. W. 2d 563, but for the benefit of the bar we will discuss our reasons for so holding.
Section 2(a) of Article 759a, V. A. C. C. P., as amended, relates to the preservation of bills of exception in the statement of facts in question and answer form. The statement of facts is a record of the evidence offered or adduced upon the trial, or so much thereof as appellant specifies. An appellant may limit the statement of facts by designation, but he cannot expand it to include other than the evidence offered or adduced upon the trial or the rulings of the court during the introduction of the evidence. It therefore follows that the argument of counsel cannot properly be made a part of the statement of facts.
Finding no formal bills of exception to the argument, the motion for rehearing is overruled.