Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 Tex. Crim. 556

150 S.W 431

Rawls v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1912-06-26

<p>Decoying Minor—Statement of Facts.</p> <p>Where the judgment was affirmed because of the absence of a statement of facts, and it was shown on motion for rehearing that the failure of the trial judge to approve the statement of facts arose from no want of diligence on the part of appellant, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded. Sargent v. State, 61 Texas Grim. Rep., 34, and other cases.</p>

Decided 1912-06-26

DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.

¶1 —Appellant was convicted under an information charging her with enticing and decoying a minor from the custody of I. N. Graham, the legally appointed guardian of the minor, whose name was Silas Castle.

¶2 What purports to be a statement of facts in the record is signed by the attorneys, but was not approved by the judge. It, therefore, can not be considered. In the absence of a statement of facts we are unable to revise the questions presented, to wit: the want of sufficient evidence and errors of omission and commission in connection with the charge of the court.

¶3 With the record in this condition the judgment must be affirmed, and it is accordingly .so ordered.

¶4 Affirmed.

/67/texcrim/556 · .json · Public domain