Covey v. State

Citations

• 23 Tex. Ct. App. 388
• 5 S.W. 283
• 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 89

Syllabus

<p>1. Perjtjrt—Indictment.—If an indictment for perjury shows by its allegations that the perjury was committed in a judicial proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, and describes the judicial proceeding with reasonable certainty, it need only allege in general terms that a certain issue was joined in said proceeding, and need not specifically allege what the issue was.</p> <p>2. Same.—Though the testimony taken at an examining trial should be reduced to writing as directed by the Code of Procedure, yet perjury may be assigned upon oral testimony taken but not reduced to writing in such trial.</p> <p>3. Hew Trial—Continuance.—Though acontinuancewas properlyrefusel because diligence was not shown, yet upon the motion for new trial, if the evidence adduced at the trial denotes that the absent testimony was material and probably true, the trial court should grant a new trial. And the action of the trial court in this matter will be revised on appeal if it appears that the defendant may have sustained injury in consequence of the refusal of the continuance.</p> <p>4. Same—Practice in this Court.—As cause for reversal on appeal, however, it must not only appear that the defendant suffered prejudice by reason of the refusal of the continuance by the trial court, but it must be reasonably probable that the absent testimony would induce a verdict more favorable to the appellant. See this case in illustration.</p>