Opinion

Upton v. State

  • 20 S.W.2d 794
  • 1929 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 895
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
Jun 12, 1929
Status
Published
Author
Lattimocre
On the bench
Christian, Lattimocre
Cited by
21 cases

The opinion

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMOCRE, J.

Appellant insists that we erred in not considering his bills of exception. Examination of each of them confirms us in the conclusion that the matters stated in each as grounds of objection are in none of same verified as facts. The rule is as old as this court that a bill of exceptions taken by the accused must manifest by its recitals the error complained of. A bill which goes no further than to show that objections were made for stated reasons, no matter how lengthy and particular the reasons thus stated may be, will not be a good bill, unless in some way -the facts thus stated as objections are shown by the bill, or by the form of approval of the trial judge, to be true. Munoz v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 60 S. W. 759 .

Finding no error in the matter as originally decided, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.