Betts v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Betts v. State

159 S.W. 1069, 71 Tex. Crim. 204, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 402

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 25, 1913

DocketNo. 2600.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 S.W. 1069 (Betts v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Betts v. State, 159 S.W. 1069, 71 Tex. Crim. 204, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 402 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, Judge.

Appellantwas convicted on this trial of the offense of manslaughter, and his punishment was assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary. This is the fourth appeal in this case, the opinions in the former appeals being reported in 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 389; 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 631, and 144 S. W. Rep., 677, and the facts are so fully stated in these opinions we do not deem it necessary to state them again.

There is no motion for a continuance in the record, and while there is a bill of exceptions in the record complaining of the action of the court in overruling his motion for a continuance on account of Mrs. Betts,' the application is not copied in the bill, and not being in the record, we can not review this matter. The court in approving the bill states that the motion was defective and wholly insufficient in law, and if this is true, were the motion for continuance copied in the record, it would not be of' any avail to appellant.

The appellant again objected to the testimony of Bland Marshall, Lena Jones and Bates Cox. As this testimony was held admissible in all three of the former opinions, we do not deem it necessary to discuss the question again.

Appellant complains that the court erred in not defining manslaughter. As the court did define this offense, if any error there be in such definition, appellant does not seek to point it out.

Appellant’s complaint of the charge as specified in bill Ho. 7, and • in the seventh paragraph of the motion, was passed on by this court in the former appeal in this case reported in 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 631, and under such circumstances we will not again review the question.

The court submitted the issue of aggravated assault as favorably to appellant as the evidence authorized, and in accordance with the former opinions in this case.

*206 [Rehearing denied October 33, 1913.—Reporter.]

All the questions presented on this appeal have been decided adversely to appellant in the former opinions in this case. The evidence supports the verdict and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HARPER, Judge.

Appellantwas convicted on this trial of the offense of manslaughter, and his punishment was assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary. This is the fourth appeal in this case, the opinions in the former appeals being reported in 57 Texas Crim. Rep., 389; 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 631, and 144 S. W. Rep., 677, and the facts are so fully stated in these opinions we do not deem it necessary to state them again.

There is no motion for a continuance in the record, and while there is a bill of exceptions in the record complaining of the action of the court in overruling his motion for a continuance on account of Mrs. Betts,' the application is not copied in the bill, and not being in the record, we can not review this matter. The court in approving the bill states that the motion was defective and wholly insufficient in law, and if this is true, were the motion for continuance copied in the record, it would not be of' any avail to appellant.

The appellant again objected to the testimony of Bland Marshall, Lena Jones and Bates Cox. As this testimony was held admissible in all three of the former opinions, we do not deem it necessary to discuss the question again.

Appellant complains that the court erred in not defining manslaughter. As the court did define this offense, if any error there be in such definition, appellant does not seek to point it out.

Appellant’s complaint of the charge as specified in bill Ho. 7, and • in the seventh paragraph of the motion, was passed on by this court in the former appeal in this case reported in 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 631, and under such circumstances we will not again review the question.

The court submitted the issue of aggravated assault as favorably to appellant as the evidence authorized, and in accordance with the former opinions in this case.

*206 [Rehearing denied October 33, 1913.—Reporter.]

All the questions presented on this appeal have been decided adversely to appellant in the former opinions in this case. The evidence supports the verdict and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.W. 1069, 71 Tex. Crim. 204, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/betts-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack