Savage v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Savage v. State

237 S.W.2d 315, 155 Tex. Crim. 576, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1890

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 22, 1950

Docket24917

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 237 S.W.2d 315 (Savage 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

Savage v. State, 237 S.W.2d 315, 155 Tex. Crim. 576, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1890 (Tex. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of rape and assessed the death penalty.

The offense is alleged to have occurred in the City of Hearne, Robertson County. After indictment in Robertson County he asked for change of venue, which was granted and the case transferred to Grimes County, from which the appeal comes.

We find no bills of exception in the record and the evidence, which includes a voluntary statement signed by appellant, is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. No attack of any kind is made on this statement. Appellant called some witnesses in his behalf, none of whom gave any evidence to indicate' a defense, and he did not testify in the case.

Since the submission of this case a motion has béen presented to the court, by an attorney other than those who represented appellant on his trial, to have filed three documents [578]*578denominated bills of exception. We are unable to file these bills because they were not presented to and approved by the trial court, neither were they agreed to by the attorney representing the state. Furthermore, we are unable to verify them by the record which came regularly on the appeal. Even if they had come up as bills of exception, we would have been unable to sustain them in the state of the record.

The only question we find in the record arises by reason of a motion to quash the indictment based on the allegation that he was discriminated against in the selection of the jury commission which drew the names for the grand jury returning the indictment against him. No proof was offered to support this allegation and there is nothing of which we may take judicial knowledge. The record is entirely silent as to the race of the jury commission and of the grand jury which they selected. There is nothing for us to pass on and the judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, affirmed.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of rape and assessed the death penalty.

The offense is alleged to have occurred in the City of Hearne, Robertson County. After indictment in Robertson County he asked for change of venue, which was granted and the case transferred to Grimes County, from which the appeal comes.

We find no bills of exception in the record and the evidence, which includes a voluntary statement signed by appellant, is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. No attack of any kind is made on this statement. Appellant called some witnesses in his behalf, none of whom gave any evidence to indicate' a defense, and he did not testify in the case.

Since the submission of this case a motion has béen presented to the court, by an attorney other than those who represented appellant on his trial, to have filed three documents [578]*578denominated bills of exception. We are unable to file these bills because they were not presented to and approved by the trial court, neither were they agreed to by the attorney representing the state. Furthermore, we are unable to verify them by the record which came regularly on the appeal. Even if they had come up as bills of exception, we would have been unable to sustain them in the state of the record.

The only question we find in the record arises by reason of a motion to quash the indictment based on the allegation that he was discriminated against in the selection of the jury commission which drew the names for the grand jury returning the indictment against him. No proof was offered to support this allegation and there is nothing of which we may take judicial knowledge. The record is entirely silent as to the race of the jury commission and of the grand jury which they selected. There is nothing for us to pass on and the judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 S.W.2d 315, 155 Tex. Crim. 576, 1950 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savage-v-state-texcrimapp-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack