Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 Tex. Crim. 192

164 S.W 844

Taylor v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 7, 1914

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1914-01-07

<p>¡Manslaughter—Continuance—Material Testimony—Self-defense.</p> <p>Where it appeared that the absent witness was the only disinterested party immediately present at the time of the difficulty, and it was shown that his testimony was material to sustain defendant’s plea of self-defense and defendant used due diligence to obtain his attendance, a continuance should have been granted.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1929

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1914-01-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DAVIDSON, Judge.

¶1 Appellant was convicted of manslaughter, his punishment being assessed at five years confinement in the penitentiary.

¶2 There is a purported statement of facts in the record signed by the attorneys but not approved by the judge. The clerk certifies that it is a correct copy of the original statement of facts on file in his office. As the statement of facts is presented, it can not be considered for want of the approval of the judge. The other question raised in the motion for new trial is based on the failure of the court to grant an application for continuance. There was a bill of exceptions reserved to the ruling of the court refusing the continuance, hut in the absence of statement of facts we are unable to revise the ruling of the court refusing to continue the case.- As the matter is presented the judgment will be affirmed.

¶3 Affirmed.

/73/texcrim/192 · .json · Public domain