Lee v. State

194 S.W. 137, 81 Tex. Crim. 170, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 84
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided April 4, 1917·No. No. 4428.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an assault by the use of a pistol which was then and there a prohibited weapon, ,as it is termed. The jury allotted him a term of two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exceptions. The matters set out in the motion for new trial are such that they can not be considered in the absence of a statement of facts, and some of them can not be reviewed without bills of exception, especially the question which relates to the argument of State’s counsel. There is nothing with reference to this argument except the statement in the motion for new trial.

As this record is presented to us the judgment must be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

Affirmed.

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

Lee v. State, 194 S.W. 137, 81 Tex. Crim. 170, 1917 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 84 (Tex. 1917).

194 S.W. 137 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. State
274 S.W. 622 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1924)