Cruz v. State
This text of 148 S.W. 564 (Cruz 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.
Opinion
Appellant was indicted for pursuing the occupation or business of selling intoxicating liquors in Hays County after prohibition had been adopted, was convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two years.
Hearly all the grounds in the motion for new trial relate to admitting testimony. As no bills of exception were reserved, at least none being in the record, we can not review these matters. Heither are there any special charges in .the record. If any were requested they were not copied in the transcript, consequently we can not say whether any of them should have been given or not.
Such complaints as “the court erred in its general charge in failing to charge the law applicable to the case,” are too general to bring anything before us for review. The court submitted the offense charged in the indictment. Quintana v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 401. In the condition of the record there is no error pointed out in the motion for new trial that should cause the reversal of the case.
The judgment is affirmed.
” ' Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
148 S.W. 564, 67 Tex. Crim. 93, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-state-texcrimapp-1912.