Holland v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Holland v. State

224 S.W. 1088, 88 Tex. Crim. 46, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 340

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Holland v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 87 Tex. Crim. 89 →

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided October 27, 1920·No. No. 5929.·Published

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of bigamy and given three years in the penitentiary.

It is urged that the court committed error in admitting the statement of appellant made while he was under arrest, which he claims was prejudicial to his rights. What this testimony was is not specified, nor are the circumstances attending its admission stated. In fact, the record fails to disclose that appellant presented a bill of exceptions to the court’s ruling in admitting, the testimony. The matter is so indefinitely presented, not being properly reserved for consideration, it presents no revisable error, and 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.

Appellant was convicted of bigamy and given three years in the penitentiary.

It is urged that the court committed error in admitting the statement of appellant made while he was under arrest, which he claims was prejudicial to his rights. What this testimony was is not specified, nor are the circumstances attending its admission stated. In fact, the record fails to disclose that appellant presented a bill of exceptions to the court’s ruling in admitting, the testimony. The matter is so indefinitely presented, not being properly reserved for consideration, it presents no revisable error, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Holland v. State, 224 S.W. 1088, 88 Tex. Crim. 46, 1920 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 340 (Tex. 1920).

Pincite

224 S.W. 1088 (Holland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.