Bolton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bolton v. State

227 S.W. 326, 88 Tex. Crim. 432, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 265

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 26, 1921·No. No. 6086.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MORROW, Judge.

Conviction is for burglary. There is no statement of facts. Bill of exceptions complaining of the failure of the court to charge on the law of accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence are in the record but are accompanied by no facts enabling the court to determine whether they are applicable or not. In the absence of matters in the record to the contrary, the presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling prevails.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MORROW, Judge.

Conviction is for burglary. There is no statement of facts. Bill of exceptions complaining of the failure of the court to charge on the law of accomplice testimony and circumstantial evidence are in the record but are accompanied by no facts enabling the court to determine whether they are applicable or not. In the absence of matters in the record to the contrary, the presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling prevails.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Bolton v. State, 227 S.W. 326, 88 Tex. Crim. 432, 1921 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 265 (Tex. 1921).

Pincite

227 S.W. 326 (Bolton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related