Edwards v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Edwards v. State

152 S.W. 926, 69 Tex. Crim. 44, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1913

DocketNo. 2182.

StatusPublished

This text of 152 S.W. 926 (Edwards 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

Edwards v. State, 152 S.W. 926, 69 Tex. Crim. 44, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft of property over the value of fifty dollars, his punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.

This record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts. The motion for new trial is based on the ground, first, that the court refused to give the special instructions requested by appellant. In the absence of the statement of facts we cannot say this was error. The charge requested by appellant may not have been called for in the evidence which was admitted, or may have had no relation to the case as made on the trial. Second, nor can the alleged error of the court refusing continuance be considered, because bill of exceptions is not contained in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft of property over the value of fifty dollars, his punishment being assessed at three years confinement in the penitentiary.

This record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts. The motion for new trial is based on the ground, first, that the court refused to give the special instructions requested by appellant. In the absence of the statement of facts we cannot say this was error. The charge requested by appellant may not have been called for in the evidence which was admitted, or may have had no relation to the case as made on the trial. Second, nor can the alleged error of the court refusing continuance be considered, because bill of exceptions is not contained in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.W. 926, 69 Tex. Crim. 44, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.