Mancillas v. State
| Decision Date | 21 October 1903 |
| Citation | 76 S.W. 469 |
| Parties | MANCILLAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Webb County; A. L. McLane, Judge.
Martin Mancillas was convicted of rape, and appeals. Affirmed.
Geo. Hayford, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of rape, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of five years; hence this appeal.
Appellant has filed in this court what purports to be a statement of facts, together with his reasons for not filing the same within the time required by law, and his reasons for not procuring an order authorizing 10 days after the adjournment of the term within which to file the statement. If we were authorized to consider this statement, filed without any certiorari, or order of this court, as a part of the record, still we do not think the excuse therein shown is sufficient. Accordingly we cannot consider the same as a statement of the facts in this case, and consequently we cannot consider any supposed errors which involve the statement of facts.
Appellant assigns as error the action of the court in not excluding the juror Gus Beckham, who was challenged on the ground that, in response to question as to his qualification to sit as a juror, he testified that he had conscientious scruples against the crime of rape which would prevent him giving the same consideration to such offense as he would to any other crime. If it be conceded that this was a cause of challenge, still appellant does not show that on this account he was compelled to take some juror who was not fair and impartial. He should not only show that he exhausted his challenges, but should show that he was compelled to take such unfair juror. Loggins v. State, 12 Tex. App. 65; Hudson v. State, 28 Tex. App. 323, 13 S. W. 388; Keaton v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 139, 49 S. W. 90.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial