Renfroe v. State, 22289.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtBeauchamp
Citation167 S.W.2d 772
PartiesRENFROE v. STATE.
Docket NumberNo. 22289.,22289.
Decision Date09 December 1942
167 S.W.2d 772
RENFROE
v.
STATE.
No. 22289.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
December 9, 1942.
Rehearing Denied February 3, 1943.

Appeal from District Court, Tom Green County; O. L. Parish, Judge.

J. C. Renfroe was convicted for assault to murder, and he appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

J. H. Baker, of San Saba, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.


Appellant was convicted on a charge of assault to murder and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us with only one bill of exception. This complains of the action of the court in refusing to grant a second motion for continuance. The application was made because of the absence of three witnesses. One of these witnesses was called to testify in the case but his evidence is not of material assistance to the defense. The evidence of Kiser could be nothing more than prejudicial to the prosecuting witness. Furthermore, he lived in the county but it is not shown that any effort was made to secure his attendance after he failed to appear at the time the case was called for trial. The contention is made with more insistence that appellant was entitled to have the evidence of the witness Bancroft who had moved to the State of Tennessee. The record reflects that there was a former trial of the case at which Bancroft had testified but it does not appear that the evidence on the former trial as given by him was offered and that the court failed

Page 773

to admit it. No effort had been made to take his deposition. On such statement of facts, we think the court properly overruled the motion for a continuance.

The charge seemed to have been satisfactory to the defense and no exceptions were filed to it. There is no motion for a new trial and we find no other question raised by the record. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant questions the conclusion reached in our original opinion that the trial court was not shown to have committed error in overruling appellant's second application for a continuance, and especially urges that we were not justified under the record in saying that the witness Bancroft had "moved" to the State of Tennessee.

The application for continuance was based upon the absence of three witnesses, Moffett, Kiser and Bancroft. Moffett appeared and testified. Kiser was wanted to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Bailey v. State, 22371.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 20 January 1943
    ...167 S.W.2d 772 BAILEY v. STATE. No. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. January 20, 1943. Commissioners' Decision. Appeal from Kaufman County Court; Monroe Ashworth, Judge. B. T. Bailey was convicted of aggravated assault and he appeals. Affirmed. No attorney for appellant. Spurgeon E. Bell......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT