Flagg v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Flagg v. State

153 S.W. 852, 69 Tex. Crim. 107, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 12, 1913

DocketNo. 2272.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 153 S.W. 852 (Flagg 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

Flagg v. State, 153 S.W. 852, 69 Tex. Crim. 107, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

The statment of facts shows to have been signed only by counsel for the appellant and is not approved by the judge. The evidence, therefore, can not be considered.

There is one bill of exceptions in the record which recites that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the court, in charging upon this, gave the usual stereotyped charge, but nowhere told the jury the ease at bar was one upon which the State relied upon circumstantial evidence for a conviction. So far as this phase of the case is .concerned, we are of the opinion that this was not error. While it would be better for the court to inform the jury, when he gives a charge on circumstantial evidence, yet it is- not necessary to do so. The jury would understand by reason of the fact that the court charged on circumstantial evidence that that was a part of the law of the ease and that the case was one of circumstantial evidence..For collation of authorities see Branch’s Crim. Law, Sec. 204.

The other questions in the absence of the evidence can not be considered. As the record is presented the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

The statment of facts shows to have been signed only by counsel for the appellant and is not approved by the judge. The evidence, therefore, can not be considered.

There is one bill of exceptions in the record which recites that the case is one of circumstantial evidence and the court, in charging upon this, gave the usual stereotyped charge, but nowhere told the jury the ease at bar was one upon which the State relied upon circumstantial evidence for a conviction. So far as this phase of the case is .concerned, we are of the opinion that this was not error. While it would be better for the court to inform the jury, when he gives a charge on circumstantial evidence, yet it is- not necessary to do so. The jury would understand by reason of the fact that the court charged on circumstantial evidence that that was a part of the law of the ease and that the case was one of circumstantial evidence..For collation of authorities see Branch’s Crim. Law, Sec. 204.

The other questions in the absence of the evidence can not be considered. As the record is presented the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 852, 69 Tex. Crim. 107, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flagg-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack