Bryant v. State
| Decision Date | 29 January 1913 |
| Parties | BRYANT v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Parmer County; D. B. Hill, Judge.
Jim Bryant was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Knight & Slaton, of Hereford, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted, charged with theft of an automobile, and his punishment assessed at two years' confinement in the state penitentiary.
The first two grounds in the motion for new trial read as follows: "(1) The court erred in paragraph 1 of the charge in defining the offense of theft; (2) the court erred in refusing to give defendant's special requested charge No. 1." These grounds are too general to be considered on appeal. Sue v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 122, 105 S. W. 804; Stewart v. State, 153 S. W. 1150, decided at this term of court, and authorities there cited. If called to our attention in a way we could consider them, however, the charge fully defines the offense, and the charge requested is sufficiently covered by the charge given by the court to the jury.
The only other grounds in the motion relate to the misconduct of the jury. The motion is not sworn to by appellant or any other person, and is deficient in this respect. It has always been held that when matters extrinsic the record, in matters of this character, are sought to be raised in the motion for new trial, such grounds should be verified by the affidavit of the appellant. In addition to this, the evidence heard on these grounds, on the motion for new trial, was not filed until the 12th day of June, 1912, is not approved by the judge trying the case, nor agreed to by the attorneys. Consequently such statement of facts cannot be considered. In such cases it has been held that where evidence is heard, on grounds in the motion for new trial, such statement in the motion must be verified by the appellant, and the statement of facts approved by the judge and filed in term time. Probest v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 608, 133 S. W. 263. Court adjourned April 27th, and this paper which purports to be the evidence on the motion for new trial was not filed with the clerk until June 12, 1912.
These are all the grounds in the motion, and the judgment is affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
This case was affirmed at a former day of this term, and appellant has filed a motion for rehearing, in which he complains of that portion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hicks v. State
...trial was not sworn to by appellant or any one else and was not supported by the independent affidavit of any one whomsoever. In Bryant v. State, 153 S. W. 1156, this court "It has always been held that, when matters extrinsic the record are sought to be raised in the motion for new trial, ......
-
Reyes v. State
...148 S. W. 574; Clary v. State, 68 Tex. Cr. R. 290, 150 S. W. 919; Maxwell v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 248, 153 S. W. 324; Bryant v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 457, 153 S. W. 1156; Decker v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 410, 154 S. W. 566; Vick v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 159 S. W. 50; Johnson v. State, 7......
-
Calyon v. State
...the independent affidavit of any one whomsoever." Hicks Case, 171 S. W. 757. We then cited and quoted what Judge Harper said in Bryant v. State, 153 S. W. 1156, as "It has always been held that when matters extrinsic the record are sought to be raised in the motion for new trial, such groun......
-
Elder v. State
...verdict. The motion is not verified. This has been held necessary where misconduct of the jury is alleged in the motion. Bryant v. State, 69 Tex.Cr.R. 457, 153 S.W. 1156; Dodson v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 488, 244 S.W. 601; Faulkner v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 405, 28 S.W.(2d) 551. Appellant does a......