Bryant v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Bryant v. State

153 S.W. 1156, 69 Tex. Crim. 457, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 133

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 26, 1913

DocketNo. 2233.

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 153 S.W. 1156 (Bryant 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

Bryant v. State, 153 S.W. 1156, 69 Tex. Crim. 457, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 133 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinions

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted, charged with theft of an automobile and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the State penitentiary.

The first two grounds in the motion for new trial read as follows: “1. The court erred in paragraph 1 of the charge in defining the offense of theft; (2) The court 'erred in refusing to give defendant’s *458 special requested charge No. 1.” These grounds are too general to be considered on appeal. (Sue v. The State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 122; Stewart v. State, decided at this term of court, and authorities there cited.) If called to our attention in a way we could consider them, however, the charge fully defines the offense, and the charge requested is sufficiently covered by the charge given by the court to the jury.

The only other grounds in the motion relate to the misconduct of the jury. The motion is not sworn to by appellant or any other person, and is deficient in this respect. It has always been held that when matters extrinsic the record, in matters of this character, are sought to be raised in the motion for new trial, such grounds should be verified by the affidavit of the appellant. In addition to this, the evidence heard on these grounds on the motion for new trial, was not filed until the 12th day of June, 1912; is not approved by the Judge trying the case, nor agreed to by the attorneys. Consequently such statement of facts can not be considered. In such cases it has been held that where evidence is heard, "on grounds in the motion for new trial, such statement in the motion must be verified by the appellant, and the statement of facts approved by the Judge and filed in term time. (Probest v. The State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 608.) Court adjourned April 27, and this paper which purports to be the evidence on the motion for new trial was not filed with the clerk until June 12, 1912.

These are all the grounds in the motion, and the judgment is affirmed-

Affirmed.

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

HARPER, Judge.

Appellant was prosecuted, charged with theft of an automobile and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the State penitentiary.

The first two grounds in the motion for new trial read as follows: “1. The court erred in paragraph 1 of the charge in defining the offense of theft; (2) The court 'erred in refusing to give defendant’s *458 special requested charge No. 1.” These grounds are too general to be considered on appeal. (Sue v. The State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 122; Stewart v. State, decided at this term of court, and authorities there cited.) If called to our attention in a way we could consider them, however, the charge fully defines the offense, and the charge requested is sufficiently covered by the charge given by the court to the jury.

The only other grounds in the motion relate to the misconduct of the jury. The motion is not sworn to by appellant or any other person, and is deficient in this respect. It has always been held that when matters extrinsic the record, in matters of this character, are sought to be raised in the motion for new trial, such grounds should be verified by the affidavit of the appellant. In addition to this, the evidence heard on these grounds on the motion for new trial, was not filed until the 12th day of June, 1912; is not approved by the Judge trying the case, nor agreed to by the attorneys. Consequently such statement of facts can not be considered. In such cases it has been held that where evidence is heard, "on grounds in the motion for new trial, such statement in the motion must be verified by the appellant, and the statement of facts approved by the Judge and filed in term time. (Probest v. The State, 60 Texas Crim. Rep., 608.) Court adjourned April 27, and this paper which purports to be the evidence on the motion for new trial was not filed with the clerk until June 12, 1912.

These are all the grounds in the motion, and the judgment is affirmed-

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 1156, 69 Tex. Crim. 457, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack