Skip to main content

Grant v. State

Citations

  • 3 Tex. Ct. App. 1

Syllabus

<p>1. 'Practice in this Court.—Refusal of a continuance by the court below will not be revised by this court unless exceptions thereto, duly reserved at the trial, are brought up in the record.</p> <p>2. Jury—Waiver of Mode of Impaneling.—In a trial for theft, counsel for the accused consented that the jury be impaneled under the former, instead of the present, law. Held, that this action of his counsel did not impair the defendant’s right of trial by jury, and hound him as a waiver, under article 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a defendant may waive any right, except trial by jury, when he has pleaded not guilty. Paso. Dig., art. 2492.</p> <p>8. Jury-—Irregularities in the formation of the petit jury are not favorably regarded as cause for new trial unless it appears that the mode adopted aifected the fairness of the trial, without want of diligence on the part of the defendant.</p> <p>4. Cattle — Theft—Proof of Ownership.—It is sufficient for the state to prove that the alleged owner was in possession of the animal, in good faith, under a bill of sale duly recorded. Proof of title in the owner’s vendor is not incumbent on the state.</p> <p>5. Indictment —Description of Stolen Animal. — “ One certain calf of the neat cattle kind” is sufficient description of the animal stolen.</p> <p>6. Evidence establishing a mere probability or strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused will not support a conviction.</p> <p>7. Hearsay Evidence. — The [state, after proving the brand of the alleged owner, introduced a witness who testified that he found the hide of the stolen animal where it had been freshly killed, and carried the hide to a house, where another person looked at it and said that the brand was S S, and that of the alleged owner; hut that he, the witness, knew nothing about brands. Afterwards, as the witness was leaving the stand, the state’s counsel called out to him, “What brand was on the calf?” and he replied, “S S.” Held, that this la

Judges: Winkler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.