Olaf & Anderson v. State
Olaf & Charlie Anderson v. the State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
Conviction is for theft; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.
Two mules and two horses were stolen. The evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the appellants committed the offense.
In the motion for new trial, there is an averment to the effect that the members of the jury discussed the failure of the appellants to testify and used that fact against them in deciding to'refuse to recommend a suspension of the sentence. Evidence was heard in support of this phase of the motion, but unfortunately, the bill of exceptions in which the evidence is embraced was not filed during the term of court at which the trial took place. The law therefore precludes the consideration of the bill of exceptions. Such was the ruling of this court in the opinion written by Presiding Judge Davidson in Black v. State, 41 Texas Crim. Rep., 185 . This ruling has been uniformly followed. See Gray v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 1 , 224 S. W. Rep., 513 , and cases therein cited; also Shepard’s Texas Citations, March, 1922, p. 324.
There are no additional questions raised.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.