Hill v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hill v. State

142 S.W. 1197, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 694

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hill v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 72 Tex. Crim. 109 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 17, 1912·Published

Opinion

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The motion for new trial alleges insufficiency of the evidence, and a general statement that the court erred in the charge. There are no specifications as to what errors were committed by the court in the charge. Without the statement of facts, these matters cannot be revised. The judgment is affirmed.

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

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The motion for new trial alleges insufficiency of the evidence, and a general statement that the court erred in the charge. There are no specifications as to what errors were committed by the court in the charge. Without the statement of facts, these matters cannot be revised. The judgment is affirmed.

Hill v. State, 142 S.W. 1197, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 694 (Tex. 1912).

Pincite

142 S.W. 1197 (Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.