Wright v. State

119 S.W. 811, 56 Tex. Crim. 102, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 184
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas·Decided May 5, 1909·No. No. 4161.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

This conviction was for bigamy, the punishment being assessed at three years and nine months in the penitentiary.

Appellant, in his motion for new trial, urges error on the part of the court in refusing to give his special requested instructions, and in failing to instruct the jury affirmatively to acquit if the State had failed to establish the validity of the second marriage. These matters can not be revised in the absence of a statement of the facts.

The charge given is applicable to a state of case provable under the allegations in the indictment. This court would not be justified in reviewing such errors complained of in the absence of statement of facts.

As the record presents the case the judgment is ordered to be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Wright v. State, 119 S.W. 811, 56 Tex. Crim. 102, 1909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 184 (Tex. 1909).

119 S.W. 811 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hellweg v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
110 F.2d 546 (D.C. Circuit, 1940)
Dunning v. Kentucky Utilities Co.
109 S.W.2d 6 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1937)
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. McAdoo
10 S.W.2d 503 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Abeles
126 S.W. 724 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)