Ruby v. State

Citations

• 9 Tex. Ct. App. 353

Syllabus

<p>1. Continuance — New Trial. —Defendant in a murder case applied for a continuance to obtain the testimony of a witness by whom he could prove uncommunicated threats by the deceased against defendant’s life, and alleged that by other evidence he would prove hostile demonstrations by the deceased immediately before the homicide. The continuance was refused, and at the trial there was no evidence tending to prove hostile demonstrations by the deceased, or that be was the aggressor. Held, that this state of case shows that the desired proof of uncommunicated threats was not material to the defence, and that the refusal of the continuance is not cause for a new trial.</p> <p>2. Evidence. — To impeach a State’s witness, the defence proposed to prove by a grand juror that the witness, in his testimony before the grand jury, made statements contradictory of his testimony at the trial. Held, in view of the grand juror’s oath prescribed by the Code, that the proposed proof was correctly excluded.</p> <p>3. Practice — The “ Rule.” — In a trial for murder, the prosecution caused the witnesses to be placed under the rule, but was subsequently allowed, over the defendant’s objection, to introduce and examine a witness who had not been put under the rule, but who had not heard other witnesses testify, and whose testimony was made material by evidence adduced by the defence. Held, that no error is apparent.</p> <p>4. Bvtdestce. — The defence was not entitled to put a State’s witness on her voir.dire for purposes within the scope of cross-examination.</p>