STUBBS v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 15, 1913.)
1. Criminal Law (§§ 1092, 1099) — Statements 03? Fact — Time of Filins.
Where the term of the county court at which accused was convicted adjourned May 3d, a statement of facts and bills of exception, not approved and filed until July 2d, cannot be considered, coming more than 20 days after adjournment.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2803, 2829, 2834-2861, 2866-2880, 2919; Dec. Dig. §§ 1092, 1099.]
2. Criminal Law (§ 829) — Triai^-Instruc-TIONS.
The refusal of a special request, covered by the charges given, is not error.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. ⅞ 2011; Dec. Dig. § 829.]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1088) — Bill of Exceptions — Motion for New Trial.
That the bill of exceptions embraces the motion for new trial does not add anything to the motion, or give accused any additional grounds for review.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2676, 2746-2751, 2757, 2766, 2782-2802, 2899; Dec. Dig. § 1088.]
4. Criminal Law (§ 1159) — Appeal—Verdict — Evidence—Sufjmciency.
A verdict by the jury on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. § 1159.]
5. Criminal Law (§ 824) — 'Trial—Instructions.
In a prosecution for misdemeanor, special charges must be requested, if any special issue is desired to be presented.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1996-2004; Dec. Dig. § 824.]
6. Larceny (§ 78) — Trial—Instructions— Applicability to Evidence.
In a prosecution for misdemeanor theft, no charge on the voluntary return of stolen property is necessary, where the evidence showed that the property was not returned until after prosecution was begun.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. § 182; Dec. Dig. § 78.]
Appeal from Limestone County Court; A. M. Blackmon, Judge.
Bill Stubbs was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
HARPER, J.
Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of misdemeanor theft, and his punishment assessed at one hour in jail and a fine of $5.
[1-3] The term of court at which appellant was tried adjourned on May 3, 1913. The statement of facts and bills of exception were not approved and filed until June 2, 1913, more than 20 days subsequent to the adjournment of court for the term; consequently, the motion to strike them from the record must be sustained. But, were we to consider them, they would not avail appellant. One of the bills is to the refusal of the court to give a special charge requested. This charge was fully covered by the court’s main charge. The other bill only embraces the motion for a new trial. This adds no strength to the motion for a new trial.
[4] The first two grounds of the motion complain of the insufficiency of the testimony. The testimony is amply sufficient to support the verdict. It is true the testimony of the defendant would show that the buggy robe was taken by a mistake; but this issue was fully presented to the jury, and they found adversely to that contention.
[5, 6] There was no special charge requested in regard to a voluntary return of - the stolen property, and in a misdemeanor case a charge must be requested, if it is desired that any special issue be presented. However, if a charge had been presented, the evidence does not raise that issue, as the prosecution had been begun before any steps had been taken looking to the return of the property.
The judgment is affirmed.