Denton v. State
| Decision Date | 29 October 1902 |
| Citation | 70 S.W. 217 |
| Parties | DENTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Lamar county; Ben H. Denton, Judge.
Jim Denton was convicted of horse theft, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of horse theft, and his punishment assessed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The record is without statement of facts. Exception was reserved to the action of the court permitting the witness Bryant to testify: That about midnight on October 29th a party came to his house and spent the night. He was riding a bay horse, 14 or 15 hands high, and appellant resembled this party. Witness would not positively identify appellant, but expressed his belief, as he remembered the party, that appellant was the man. Objection was interposed to this testimony, unless the witness would positively identify appellant as the party who spent the night with witness. The district attorney stated that he would identify defendant as the man by other testimony. Appellant still objected, and insisted that before the witness could testify as to what occurred at the time, and what was said by appellant, he must be positively identified. This being overruled, the witness stated: That his recollection was that the man told him his name was Denton; that he was clerking for a merchant at Endloe by the name of Redus; that he had owned the horse for two months; that he was a good work horse, but desired to trade him for a saddle horse. The party left, going off toward Giddens. That he saw him no more, and had not seen him since, unless defendant was the man, and he could not say that he was. The bill of exceptions does not state directly, or even inferentially, that the other circumstances of the case failed to identify appellant as the party who had the conversation with the witness; nor does it exclude the idea that appellant was fully identified as the party who had the conversation with the witness. As the bill presents the matter, we are of opinion that the ruling of the court is not error.
Two of the grounds of the motion for new trial criticise the failure of the court to charge certain phases of the law. In the absence of the facts, this court cannot revise these grounds, because they may not have been suggested by the evidence. Nor can we revise those grounds of the motion which attack the sufficiency of the evidence, because the facts are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial