Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 S.W.2d 593

Griffin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided April 13, 1932

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1932-04-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1988

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“either by reason of the facts proven at the trial or by the controverting affidavits on the motion, or otherwise[.j” Arnold v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 189 , 29 S.W.2d 762 (1930); Griffin v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 604 , 51 S.W.2d 593 (1932). Thus, new evidence has been found not to be”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Jones v. State

Relies on 96 Tex. Crim. 512 - McDowell v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1932-04-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

¶2On the point of newly discovered evidence we observe that “where it clearly appears that the newly discovered testimony was not probably true, either by reason of the facts proven at the trial, or by the controverting affidavits on the motion, or otherwise, a new trial sought on that ground is properly denied.” Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C. § 200, and cases there cited, among them being Cole v. State, 16 Tex. App. 461. See, also, McDowell v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 512, 258 S. W. 186.

¶3We think that in applying the foregoing principle the learned trial judge would have been guilty of no abuse of discretion in predicating his action in overruling the motion for new trial on the proposition that both from the facts proven on the trial aña the controverting affidavits on the motion, the alleged newly discovered evidence was not probably true.

¶4We see no necessity of discussing the other questions presented in the motion for rehearing.

¶5The motion for rehearing is overruled.

/51/sw2d/593 · .json · Public domain