Pippins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Pippins v. State

56 S.W.2d 645, 122 Tex. Crim. 503, 1933 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 36

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 18, 1933

DocketNo. 15518.

StatusPublished

This text of 56 S.W.2d 645 (Pippins 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

Pippins v. State, 56 S.W.2d 645, 122 Tex. Crim. 503, 1933 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 36 (Tex. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

LATTIMORE, Judge:

Conviction for arson; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Neither statement of facts nor bills of exception are to be found in this record. An effort was made to obtain a new trial based on misconduct of the jury, and on the claim that they were permitted to separate during the trial. We note in the order overruling the motion for new trial that it is recited that evidence was heard on the motion, and that the court, after having heard the evidence, overruled the motion. In the absence of any statement of facts, or bill of exception presenting the testimony heard by the court in connection with the motion for new trial, we must give effect to the presumption that the action of the court was supported and sustained by the evidence heard. Moore v. State, 51 S. W. (2d) 584; Aston v. State, 120 Texas Crim. Rep., 534, 48 S. W. (2d) 295.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge:

Conviction for arson; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Neither statement of facts nor bills of exception are to be found in this record. An effort was made to obtain a new trial based on misconduct of the jury, and on the claim that they were permitted to separate during the trial. We note in the order overruling the motion for new trial that it is recited that evidence was heard on the motion, and that the court, after having heard the evidence, overruled the motion. In the absence of any statement of facts, or bill of exception presenting the testimony heard by the court in connection with the motion for new trial, we must give effect to the presumption that the action of the court was supported and sustained by the evidence heard. Moore v. State, 51 S. W. (2d) 584; Aston v. State, 120 Texas Crim. Rep., 534, 48 S. W. (2d) 295.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 S.W.2d 645, 122 Tex. Crim. 503, 1933 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pippins-v-state-texcrimapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack