Vowell v. State
Decision Date | 05 December 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 25560,25560 |
Citation | 244 S.W.2d 214,156 Tex.Crim. 493 |
Parties | VOWELL v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Carroll W. Smith, El Paso, for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $300.00.
No contention is made that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. Appellant's two bills of exception deal with the failure of the court to grant his motion for a new trial based upon what is alleged to have transpired within the jury room.
It will be noted that to this motion is attached the affidavit of appellant stating that the matters set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
In Vyvial v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 10 S.W.2d 83, we held that where the matters complained of in the motion for new trial were necessarily hearsay as to appellant, such as matters transpiring within the jury room, that such a motion should be accompanied by an affidavit of one who has knowledge of such matters, or should name the source of appellant's information and belief, or should give some reason or excuse for failure to have either of the above.
To require less than the above, we said, would permit limitless fishing expeditions by all who have been convicted.
In Toms v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 200 S.W.2d 174, 177, we reaffirmed this rule and said:
In Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 232 S.W.2d 711, 713, we held:
Recently, in Ramirez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 240 S.W.2d 322, we had an opportunity to distinguish between jury misconduct which occurred within the jury room and that occurring...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bearden v. State
...State, 494 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Clark v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 54, 289 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.Cr.App.1956); Vowell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 244 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.Cr.App.1951); McCune v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 207, 240 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1951); Toms v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 200 S.W.......
-
Johnston v. State, 38181
...court is not authorized to consider the same, and this Court will not consider the evidence adduced as to such matter. Vowell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 244 S.W.2d 214; Clay v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 32, 246 S.W.2d 180; Valdez v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 363, 248 S.W.2d 744; Brown v. State, 160......
-
Russ v. State
...as announced by the Missouri court in State v. Page, supra. Vyvial v. State, 1928, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 10 S.W.2d 83; Vowell v. State, 1951, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 244 S.W.2d 214; and Moore v. State, 1955, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 642, 275 S.W.2d In a proceeding such as now before us, we are called upon onl......
-
Moore v. State
...down the same rule. Vyvial v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 111, 10 S.W.2d 83; Toms v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 264, 200 S.W.2d 174; Vowell v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 244 S.W.2d 214; Fielden v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d In Prince v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 254 S.W.2d 1006, 1011, in the quotation appe......