Huffman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Huffman v. State

152 S.W. 638, 68 Tex. Crim. 555, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 642

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 11, 1912

DocketNo. 2125.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 S.W. 638 (Huffman 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

Huffman v. State, 152 S.W. 638, 68 Tex. Crim. 555, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 642 (Tex. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

HARPER, Judge.

— Appellant was indicted, charged with murder, and when tried he was found guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for twenty years.

There is no statement of facts and but one bill of exceptions in the record. In the bill it is shown that State’s counsel read certain decisions to the -court on the law of manslaughter. Under the peculiar facts in this case, had these decisions been read to the jury, and the comments made thereon recited in the bill, we can readily see how hurtful it would have been. But in approving the bill, the court states that these were read to the court and not the jury, and there is no statement in the bill or elsewhere that the jury heard the cases read or the comments thereon, therefore, no error is presented. If the court was led to have wrongfully instructed the jury as to the law of manslaughter, as applicable to the evidence in this case, by the conduct recited, appellant could have taken advantage of it in his motion for new trial.

There being no statement of facts accompanying the record, there is no ground in the motion for new trial that would present error in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HARPER, Judge.

— Appellant was indicted, charged with murder, and when tried he was found guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for twenty years.

There is no statement of facts and but one bill of exceptions in the record. In the bill it is shown that State’s counsel read certain decisions to the -court on the law of manslaughter. Under the peculiar facts in this case, had these decisions been read to the jury, and the comments made thereon recited in the bill, we can readily see how hurtful it would have been. But in approving the bill, the court states that these were read to the court and not the jury, and there is no statement in the bill or elsewhere that the jury heard the cases read or the comments thereon, therefore, no error is presented. If the court was led to have wrongfully instructed the jury as to the law of manslaughter, as applicable to the evidence in this case, by the conduct recited, appellant could have taken advantage of it in his motion for new trial.

There being no statement of facts accompanying the record, there is no ground in the motion for new trial that would present error in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.W. 638, 68 Tex. Crim. 555, 1912 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffman-v-state-texcrimapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack