Singleton v. State

Decided March 12, 1913

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1913-03-12

1. Criminal Law (§ 1090*) — Appeal—Bills 03? EXCEPTION — NECESSITY. The overruling of an application for a continuance in a criminal case cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2815, 2816, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2824, 2828-2833, 2843, 2931-2933, 2943; Dec. Dig. § 1090.*] 2. Criminal Law (§ 1097*) — Appeai^State-3vient oe Facts — Necessity. Whether the verdict in a criminal case is contrary to the law and evidence cannot be determined, in the absence of a statement of facts. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2862, 2864, 2926, 2934, 2938, 2939, 2941, 2942, 2947; Dec. Dig. § 1097.*]

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1954

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1913-03-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HARPER, J.

¶1Appellant was convicted of assault to murder, and his punishment assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

¶2[1, 2] There are but two grounds in the motion for new trial; one complaining of the action of the court in overruling his application for a continuance. As the record contains no bill of exceptions, this is not presented in a way we can review the action of the court. The other alleges that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. As the record contains no statement of facts, neither can we review this ground.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.