Pilgrim v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion of the Court
MORROW, Judge.
The conviction is for burglary. The document accompanying the record denominated as statement of facts cannot be considered as such for the reason that the authentication by the trial judge, which is essential, is wanting. Wright v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 3, and other eases collated in Vernon’s Texas Crim. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 819, note 22. In the absence of a statement of facts the presumption in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling will prevail on appeal, unless the bill of exceptions is complete to a degree that renders the harmful error apparent without the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Denton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1901
- Brown v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909
- Hare v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1909
- Wright v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1896
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bishop v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1954
- Biggs v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1929
- Bishop v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1954
- Hunter v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1944
- McDowell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.