Rowland v. State

Citations

• 35 Tex. 487

Syllabus

<p>1. On an application for change of venue in this murder case, the court • below called up the sheriff, clerk of the court, and two deputy sheriffs, and examined them under oath respecting the alleged “prejudice” against the accused, on which his application was based. The affiants stated that they knew of no prejudice which would prevent a fair trial in the county. Held, on the authority of Cotton v. The State, 32 Texas, 614, that the ruling of the court below in refusing the change of venue will not be disturbed by this court.</p> <p>2. Copy of indictment for murder was served on the accused on the twenty-fifth of November, and on the same day he sued out a subpoena for a witness. On the twenty-ninth of November, he sued out an attachment for the witness, who had previously removed to a distant county (according to the affidavit of accused for a continuance), and by whom he expected to prove an alibi. The case came to trial on the same day he sued out the attachment, and he applied for a continuance for want of the witness. Held, that the showing of diligence made was not sufficient, and did not bring the case within the statutory rule; and furthermore, this court is satisfied, from an inspection of the whole evidence in the case, that if the absent witness had testified to the alibi it would have availed the defendant nothing; wherefore there was no error in overruling the application.</p>