
    POLLEY v. STATE.
    (No. 7979.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 9, 1924.)
    Criminal law &wkey;>l 144(14) — Court of criminal appeals will presume absence of error in refusing requested charges, where absence of statement of facts precludes determination of question.
    Where the court of criminal appeals, by reason of the absence in the record of a statement of facts, is unable to determine whether the trial court committed error in refusing to give accused’s requested special charges, and the record otherwise seems to disclose that the main charge and special charges as given covered almost every imaginable phase of the case that could have been raised by the evidence, it will presume no error was committed in refusing to give the requested instructions, and will affirm the judgment of conviction.
    Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Chas. L. Brachfield, Judge.
    Cliff Polley was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., of Midland, and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., of Devine, for the State.
   HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for murder with punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for 12 years.

There is no statement of facts in the record, and for that reason we find ourselves unable to appraise the only hill of exception presented. The court charged on murder, manslaughter, and self-defense. We presume from the charge on self-defense that the issue arose whether after the shooting commenced deceased abandoned the difficulty, and that appellant continued to fire after it was apparent to him that he was in no further danger from deceased. This issue was also submitted, not only in the main charge of the court, but in special charges which were requested and given. The only bill of exception relates to the refusal to give certain other special charges. The learned trial judge qualifies it by stating that changes were made in his main charge to make it conform to the issues presented in the special charges, and also that certain other special charges were given covering the same matters. We find this borne out by an examination of the record. By the main charge and the special charges given the court appears to have covered almost every imaginable phase of a case that could have been raised by the evidence, and in the absence of a statement of facts we are totally unable to appraise the value of the complaint based on the failure to give certain of appellant’s requested instructions.

Being unable to determine from tbe record that error was committed, we must presume to tbe- contrary, and tbe judgment is affirmed. 
      <&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-N UMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     