Winkfield v. State

Citations

• 41 Tex. 148

Syllabus

<p>1. Continuance.—An application for continuance, made by one indicted for murder, which is based on the absence of a witness by whom defendant expected to prove that deceased had been seen in bed with defendant’s wife, and that the fact had been communicated to the accused “a short time before the killing took place,” is too vague with reference to time, and is insufficient.</p> <p>2. Continuance.—Such evidence could only be material to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter, by establishing “adequate cause,” and the time which intervened between the communication of the fact to the defendant and the homicide should be definitely stated, and with such certainty as to enable the court to determine whether there had been reasonable time for passion to subside.</p> <p>S. Change of venue.—After an application for change of venue has been made, under art. 2994 of Pas. Dig., on account of prejudice, the court may examine other witnesses for the purpose of determining the truth of the matters alleged in the application,</p> <p>4. Change of venue.—The issue presented by an application for change of venue involves not only the general character for truth of those who make the supporting affidavits, but also their means of knowledge, their intelligence, and their relation to defendant. It may also embrace the notoriety of the particular offense of the party slain, or of the defendant himself, and an inquiry into the settled conviction of a large portion or the whole of a community, as to particular offenses or classes of persons.</p> <p>5. Change of venue.—On application for change of venue based on alleged prejudice, the affidavits of credible witnesses who swear affirmatively are much more reliable and should have much more weight than those which are merely negative in their character.</p>