Williams v. State

Decided February 22, 1911

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1911-02-22

Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal and Er-kob — Scope op Review. Where, on appeal in a criminal prosecution, there is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions, and the ground for a motion for new trial is the refusal to strike out the evidence of a witness because be was an ex-convict, and there is no verification in the record of that statement, the objection and the ground of such motion that the evidence is insufficient will not be considered. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2804, 2862; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*]

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1965

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1911-02-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAVIDSON, P. J.

¶1This conviction was for burglary; the punishment being assessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary. The record is before us without a statement of the facts or bills of exception.

¶2The first ground of the motion for new trial is based upon the statement that the .court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to strike out the evidence of a witness by the name of Rainey, because the witness was an ex-convict, and therefore not competent to testify. There is no verification in the record of that statement. There is nothing before the court in regard to the matter, except this ground of the motion.

¶3The second ground of the motion is that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. The statement of facts is not before us. •

¶4The judgment is affirmed.