Mendiola v. State

Citations

• 18 Tex. Ct. App. 462
• 1885 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 132

Syllabus

<p>1. Venue.— Continuance was sought in this ease to procure testimony to prove that the offense was not committed in L. county, but in E. county. Held, that the continuance was properly refused because the testimony was abundont to show that it was committed in L. county; and because the absent testimony, considered in connection with that adduced on the trial, was probably not true, and because it was not shown by the application that the absent testimony, if present, and probably true, would defeat the jurisdictian of L. county by showing that the offense was committed in E. county, more than four hundred yards beyond the coterminous county line.</p> <p>3. Insanity.—Burden of Proof to establish insanity, when such defense is relied upon, is on the accused. The opinion of a witness upon the question is admissible, but, unless founded upon some substantial reason, is entitled to but little weight.</p> <p>8. Practice—Evidence.— To support venue, the State introduced the certificote of the commissioner of the general land office, to the effect that the Mills survey on the south boundary of L. county was recognized by the said office as the true boundary line between L. and E, counties. It was urged against the competency of this evidence that the certificate did not contain the field notes of the survey. Held that, the survey being recognized by the land office as correct, it was properly a question of fact for the jury, and further, if the certificate without the field notes proved nothing, it could not, though incompetent, have operated to the prejudice of the accused.</p> <p>4. Same.— Charge of the Court, when first questioned as to its correctness in the motion for new trial, will not be revised on appeal unless it is fundamentally errroneous, or, when viewed in the light of all the circumstances, was calculated to prejudice the rights of the accused.</p> <p>5. Murder — Fact Case.— See the statement of the case for evidence held sufficient to support a capital co