Featherstone v. State

Decided December 11, 1912

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1912-12-11

1. Ceiminal Raw (§§ 1090, 1122*) — Appeal —Record—Matters to be Included. Where the record does not contain the evidence, or any bills of exception, the failure of the court to charge on a plea of temporary insanity cannot be reviewed. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Raw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2940-2945, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. §§, 1090, 1122.*] 2. .Criminal Raw (§§ 1090, 1120*) — Appeal-Record — Matters to be Included. Where the record does not contain the evidence, or any bills of exception, the exclusion of evidence cannot be reviewed. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Raw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2653, 2789, 2803-2827, 2927, 2928, 2948, 3204; Dec. Dig. §§ 1090, 1120.*] 3. Criminal Raw (§ 1121*) — Apeeal—Rec-ord — Matters to be Included. Where the record does not contain the evidence, its sufficiency to support a conviction cannot be reviewed. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Raw, Cent. Dig. §,§ 2938, 2939; Dec. Dig. § 1121.*]

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1915

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1912-12-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAVIDSON, P. J.

¶1Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder; his punishment being assessed at five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

¶2[1-3] The record is before us without the evidence or bills of exception. The grounds of the motion for new trial are based on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and failure of the court to charge on the plea of temporary insanity, and in excluding certain evidence as shown by bills of exception, and in not permitting defendant to introduce certain evidence. None of these objections are in any manner verified. The evidence not being before us, the insufficiency of the evidence cannot be reviewed.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.