Barnett v. State, 27183
| Decision Date | 17 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 27183,27183 |
| Citation | 273 S.W.2d 878,160 Tex.Crim. 622 |
| Parties | Sam BARNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Cunningham, Cole & Southerland, Bonham, H. A. Cunningham, for appellant.
Wesley Dice, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
This is a conviction for aggravated assault by an adult male upon a female; the punishment, a fine of $150 and six months in jail.
In his brief, the appellant correctly asserts that the sole question presented for review relates to the action of the trial court in overruling his amended motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.
The motion for new trial, as it appears in this record, was not sworn to by appellant or his attorneys. There was attached to the motion the affidavit of the alleged newly discovered witness.
A motion for new trial because of newly discovered evidence must be sworn to. Authorities attesting the rule stated are replete and will be found collated under Art. 756, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., among which is that of Cartwright v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 255 S.W.2d 878, where the rule was applied notwithstanding the affidavit of the alleged newly discovered witness was attached to the unsworn motion.
The fact that the trial court, as here, heard evidence upon the motion does not relieve the defect, as the motion must be sufficient as a pleading to present the question. Vowell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 244 S.W.2d 214.
The question of newly discovered evidence was not before the trial court.
No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...of the allegedly newly discovered witness alone will not suffice. Martin v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 423, 334 S.W.2d 796; Barnett v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 622, 273 S.W.2d 878." (Emphasis Even if the issue was properly before us, no error would be shown. The evidence in Hart's affidavit serves on......
-
Fontenot v. State
...16 L.Ed.2d 534; Hunt v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 51, 317 S.W.2d 743; Thomas v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 316 S.W.2d 741; Barnett v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 622, 273 S.W.2d 878; Prince v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 254 S.W.2d 1006; Valdez v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 363, 248 S.W.2d 744; Clay v. State, 1......
-
Pizzitola v. State
...on appeal even though the trial court heard evidence thereon. Thomas v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 584, 316 S.W.2d 741; Barnett v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 622, 273 S.W.2d 878. Appellant was represented by counsel, as a matter of record, from March 4, 1963, when his first amended motion for new trial......
-
Lopez v. State, 35267
...of the motion on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Cartwright v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 344, 255 S.W.2d 878; Barnett v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 622, 273 S.W.2d 878; Oliff v. State, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 276 S.W.2d 839; Howard v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 466, 308 S.W.2d 45; Thomas v. State, 166 T......