Johnson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Johnson v. State

153 S.W. 849, 69 Tex. Crim. 123, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 59

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 8, 1913

DocketNo. 2126.

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.W. 849 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 153 S.W. 849, 69 Tex. Crim. 123, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 59 (Tex. 1913).

Pincite

Opinions

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, his punishment being assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.

Some of the grounds of the motion for new trial relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, which cannot be considered because the statement of facts is not before the court. Another ground of. the motion urges that the court erred in admitting and rejecting testimony. There being no bills of exceptions in the record, these matters cannot be considered. For the same reason the alleged errors in the charge cannot be regarded as erroneous. The charge as given is such as could be applicable to a state of facts provable under the allegations in the indictment.

The judgment is ordered to 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 murder in the second degree, his punishment being assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.

Some of the grounds of the motion for new trial relate to the sufficiency of the evidence, which cannot be considered because the statement of facts is not before the court. Another ground of. the motion urges that the court erred in admitting and rejecting testimony. There being no bills of exceptions in the record, these matters cannot be considered. For the same reason the alleged errors in the charge cannot be regarded as erroneous. The charge as given is such as could be applicable to a state of facts provable under the allegations in the indictment.

The judgment is ordered to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 849, 69 Tex. Crim. 123, 1913 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-texcrimapp-1913.