
    CARRILLO v. STATE.
    (No. 4613.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 17, 1917.)
    1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION &wkey;>25 — Formal Defects — Sufficiency.
    An indictment alleging, “The grand jury of Cameron county, Tex., upon their oaths, present in the district court thereof, at the March term, A. D. 1917,” sufficiently shows that the grand jury; was duly organized at a court then in session.
    2. Criminal Law &wkey;>1128(2) — Appeal—Matters Review able — Record.
    An affidavit to the effect that defendant, a Mexican in a Mexican locality, was tried and indicted only by Americans, there being many qualified Mexicans, a discrimination in violation of Const. U- S. Amends. 14 and 15, in the absence of any showing that it was presented to the court, .or that evidence was received, no statement of facts having been filed, cannot be noticed on appeal.
    Appeal from District Court, Cameron. County; W. B.-Hopkins, Judge.
    . Felipe Carrillo was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of rape; his punishment being assessed at ten years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. A motion was made to quash the indictment because it did not sufficiently allege that the grand jury which returned the bill was duly organized at a court then in session. While the indictment is rather brief in this respect, yet we think it is sufficient. That part of it complained of reads as follows:

“The grand jury of Cameron County, Tex., upon their oaths, present in the district court thereof, at the March term, A. D. 1917.”

It does not recite that the grand jury of Cameron county, upon their oaths, present in the district court thereof, that is Cameron county, at its March term. While not very explicit, we think it is a sufficient compliance with the second and third requisites of the statute prescribing the necessary ingredients of an indictment. However, we would suggest to parties drawing indictments to take sufficient time and be more explicit in their allegations. It is unnecessary to present matters of this sort to this court when a little time, patience, and caution would avoid all such questions and the discussion of them. The bills of exception largely present questions of supposed errors in the 'giving or refusing of charges. Without the statement of facts, we are unable to review any of those matters.

Appellant files what he terms a special plea, to the effect that he is of Mexican birth, and that approximately 75 per cent, of the qualified voters of Cameron county are of Mexican origin; that among the 75 per cent, there are hundreds of Mexicans who are qualified jurors, who can read and write and understand the English language, and that this case is particularly a case in which the manner and customs of the Mexican people will be determinative of his punishment, if he be guilty of the offense with which he is charged, yet in spite of the great preponderance in number of the qualified Mexican jurors over the American qualified jurors in the county, there was not a member of the grand jury which found the indictment in this cause a man of Mexican birth, and in the special venire summoned from the jury list to try this cause, there appears only one name of a man of Mexican birth, to wit, Julian Villareal, and that the failure on the part of the jury commissioners to duly select qualified persons of Mexican birth, to serve as grand and petit jurors, is a discrimination in drawing the special venire and in the selection of the grand jury, in violation of constitutional amendments 14 and 15 of the Constitution of the United States, and is an injury by reason of which he has been deprived of his constitutional rights. It is not shown that the question was ever presented to the court, otherwise than as stated by this affidavit of the defendant, and it is uot shown that any evidence was offered or received by the court, and therefore the matter cannot be reviewed by this court. As the question is presented we are unable to revise it, and therefore the question is not further noticed.

As the record presents the ease, we are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed?, and it is accordingly so ordered.  