Slatter v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Slatter v. State

136 S.W. 770, 61 Tex. Crim. 243, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 73

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 15, 1911

DocketNo. 970.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 136 S.W. 770 (Slatter 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

Slatter v. State, 136 S.W. 770, 61 Tex. Crim. 243, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 73 (Tex. 1911).

Pincite

Opinions

HARPER, Judge.

—Appellant was indicted in the District Court of Rains County for attempting to pass a forged instrument; upon a trial he was adjudged guilty, and his punishment assessed at two *245 years confinement in the State penitentiary, from which judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

1. The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to strike out the statement of facts, which is copied in the record. Sections 5 and 6 of chapter 39 of the Act of the Thirty-first Legislature provide that in felony cases the statement of facts shall be prepared in duplicate, and that the original statement of facts shall be sent to this court on appeal. In a number of cases it has been held that this Act must be complied with, and the original statement of facts sent to this court, and this court will not and can not consider a statement of facts copied in the record. The motion is sustained and the statement of facts stricken out.

And in the absence of a statement of facts, if the charge is applicable to any state of facts that might be made by the testimony under the allegations of the indictment, on appeal it will be considered and assumed that the trial court submitted to the jury all the law applicable to the case. Mundine v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 93.

2. By bills of exception Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appellant complains of the action of the court admitting certain testimony as to the amount of the note alleged to have been forged, and testimony describing said note. Also to fragments of a note introduced in evidence. The court qualifies the bills by stating that this testimony was admitted after witness I vie had testified that he had destroyed a part of said note, and the pieces introduced in evidence were identified as a portion of the note alleged to have been forged. When a party accepts and files a bill of exceptions qualified by the court, he is bound by the qualification. In order to have revised on appeal the action of the trial court in modifying, changing or contradicting a defendant’s bill of exception, the defendant must have objected to such action at the time, and have reserved a bill of exceptions to such alteration of his original bill. A failure to do so is tantamount to an acceptance of the bill, and estops defendant from further complaint in the matter. Blain v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 448. If the note had been destroyed, secondary evidence would be admissible.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

HARPER, Judge.

—Appellant was indicted in the District Court of Rains County for attempting to pass a forged instrument; upon a trial he was adjudged guilty, and his punishment assessed at two *245 years confinement in the State penitentiary, from which judgment he prosecutes this appeal.

1. The Assistant Attorney-General has filed a motion to strike out the statement of facts, which is copied in the record. Sections 5 and 6 of chapter 39 of the Act of the Thirty-first Legislature provide that in felony cases the statement of facts shall be prepared in duplicate, and that the original statement of facts shall be sent to this court on appeal. In a number of cases it has been held that this Act must be complied with, and the original statement of facts sent to this court, and this court will not and can not consider a statement of facts copied in the record. The motion is sustained and the statement of facts stricken out.

And in the absence of a statement of facts, if the charge is applicable to any state of facts that might be made by the testimony under the allegations of the indictment, on appeal it will be considered and assumed that the trial court submitted to the jury all the law applicable to the case. Mundine v. State, 50 Texas Crim. Rep., 93.

2. By bills of exception Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appellant complains of the action of the court admitting certain testimony as to the amount of the note alleged to have been forged, and testimony describing said note. Also to fragments of a note introduced in evidence. The court qualifies the bills by stating that this testimony was admitted after witness I vie had testified that he had destroyed a part of said note, and the pieces introduced in evidence were identified as a portion of the note alleged to have been forged. When a party accepts and files a bill of exceptions qualified by the court, he is bound by the qualification. In order to have revised on appeal the action of the trial court in modifying, changing or contradicting a defendant’s bill of exception, the defendant must have objected to such action at the time, and have reserved a bill of exceptions to such alteration of his original bill. A failure to do so is tantamount to an acceptance of the bill, and estops defendant from further complaint in the matter. Blain v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 448. If the note had been destroyed, secondary evidence would be admissible.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.W. 770, 61 Tex. Crim. 243, 1911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slatter-v-state-texcrimapp-1911.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack