TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harvey v. State

F. B. Harvey v. the State

Harvey v. State, 121 S.W. 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 19, 1909
Docket
No. 4256.
Judges
Brooks
Citations
121 S.W. 60557 Tex. Crim. 71909 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 336
Headnotes
1. —Wilfully Exposing Person — Assignment of Errors — Motion for New Trial. An assignment of errors lias no place in the Court of Criminal Appeals; all errors must be raised in the motion for new trial. 2. —Same—Motion for New Trial — Filing. Upon appeal it is necessary that the motion for new trial is filed in the court below, otherwise it cannot be considered.
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Brooks

BROOKS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of wilfully exposing his person, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $10.

We find no motion for a new trial in the record. We find an assignment of errors, but an assignment of errors has no place in this court. All errors in the charge must be reserved in a motion for a new trial. The assignment of errors is not'filed in the lower court. In the absence of motion for a new trial there is nothing in this record authorizing a review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Addendum — Brooks

*8 on rehearing.

October 13, 1909.

BROOKS, Judge.

This case was affirmed at the last term of this court, and now comes before us on motion for rehearing.

Appellant contends there is a motion for a new trial in the record. There is an unsigned portion of what purports to be a motion for a new trial, though it does not appear to have been filed and is indexed as an assignment of errors. Unless a motion for new trial is filed it cannot be reviewed by us. The motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.

Overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1911: 21912: 11913: 11915: 11917: 119112026peak 1911 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sessions v. State197 S.W. 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917) · Dissent
  2. Vinson v. State179 S.W. 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)
  3. Day v. State138 S.W. 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1911)
  4. White v. State157 S.W. 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913)
  5. Wormley v. State143 S.W. 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
  6. Tilmeyer v. State136 S.W. 1060 (Tex. Crim. App. 1911)

Most recent

  1. Sessions v. State197 S.W. 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1917) · Dissent
  2. Vinson v. State179 S.W. 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)
  3. White v. State157 S.W. 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 1913)
  4. Wormley v. State143 S.W. 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1912)
  5. Day v. State138 S.W. 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1911)
  6. Tilmeyer v. State136 S.W. 1060 (Tex. Crim. App. 1911)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list