Holland v. State
This text of 146 S.W.2d 400 (Holland 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
146 S.W.2d 400, 140 Tex. Crim. 529, 1941 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-v-state-texcrimapp-1941.