Stouard v. State
Citations
- 27 Tex. Ct. App. 1
- 10 S.W. 442
- 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 231
Syllabus
<p>1. Practice—Continuance.—The statute under which on'e of plural defendants, whether jointly or separately indicted, by filing his affidavit to the effect that he verily believes there is no evidence against his co-defendant, and that the testimony of his co-defendant is material to his own defense, may require that his co-defendant he first tried, can not, independent of other sufficient showing, -be held to operate a continuance of his case to secure the testimony of his co-defendant. When, arraigned in the district court of Shackelford county, to which the venue had been changed from Stephens county, the defendant in this ■ease filed an affidavit setting forth that Jane Stouard was charged by separate indictment with the same offense; that the indictment against Jane Stouard was still pending in the district court of Stephens county; that the testimony of the said Jane Stouard was material to his defense, and that he verily believed there was not sufficient evidence to convict the said Jane Stouard; upon which affidavit he prayed the court to order that the said Jane Stouard be first tried, and that his trial he continued in order to enable him to secure the testimony of said Jane Stouard, if acquitted. Held, that the court did not err in refusing to continue the case to await the trial of the co-defendant.</p> <p>2. Same—Diligence.—The application for continuance recited also the absence of two material witnesses. Overruling the same for the want of diligence, the trial judge explained that, although confined in the same jail with one of the absent witnesses for months, the accused had taken no steps to secure the service of process upon him; and that, although, as shown by a previous application for continuance, the defendant knew that the other witness was an incurable invalid, and unlikely ever to be able to leave his bed, he had taken no steps to secure his deposition. Held that the ruling was correct.</p> <p>3. Murdeb—Corroboration oe Accomplice Testimony
Judges: Hurt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.