Lee v. State

244 S.W. 374, 92 Tex. Crim. 382, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 483
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lee v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 90 Tex. Crim. 458
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided October 18, 1922·No. No. 7295.·Published

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Appellant was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County of embezzlement, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

*383 The record is before us without- statement of facts or bills of exception. There is a lengthy motion for a new trial in which complaint is made of many matters alleged to have transpired in the course of the trial and especially during the argument. A part of what purports to be an address to the jury on the part of an attorney prosecuting the case, is made a part of said motion. In the absence of a bill of exceptions complaining of such matters we can not consider them at all. The indictment appearing to be in conformity with law, and no complaint being made of the charge of the court, no error appears, and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Lee v. State, 244 S.W. 374, 92 Tex. Crim. 382, 1922 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 483 (Tex. 1922).

244 S.W. 374 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.