Holland v. State

146 S.W.2d 400, 140 Tex. Crim. 529, 1941 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided January 8, 1941·No. No. 21340.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for rape, punishment assessed being five years in the penitentiary.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are in the record. Appellant complained of the court’s charge in several particulars, and requested a number of special charges which we find were incorporated in the main charge of the court. We are in no position to appraise the objections to the court’s instruction, nor to complaint of refusing any special charges in the absence óf the facts. Scott v. State, 135 Texas Cr. R. 324, 119 S. W. (2d) 884; Lloyd v. State, 114 S. W. (2d) 544; Stephens v. State, 136 S. W. (2d) 216.

Appellant set up in his motion for new trial misconduct of the jury. The facts developed on the hearing of the motion are not brought forward either in a bill of exception or by separate statement of facts. The findings of the trial judge as recited in the order overruling the motion are expressly against appellant on the averments in his motion.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Holland v. State, 146 S.W.2d 400, 140 Tex. Crim. 529, 1941 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6 (Tex. 1941).

146 S.W.2d 400 (Holland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Speth v. State
965 S.W.2d 13 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Capistran v. State
759 S.W.2d 121 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Ex Parte Guerrero
521 S.W.2d 613 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Shumake v. State
502 S.W.2d 758 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)