Case ID: sw_218/html/1043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WASHINGTON v. STATE.
    (No. 5674.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 18, 1920.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;958(6), 1111(1) — Ground FOR NEW TRIAL CONSIDERED ON APPEAL WHEN SUPPORTED BY UNCONTEADICTED AFFIDAVITS.
    When a motion for new trial, setting up newly discovered evidence, is properly sworn to, and the affidavits of the witnesses from whom such new evidence is expected are attached to and made a part of said motion, the same should be considered as properly before the trial court and the appellate court, and such matters of evidence must be taken as true, unless the state sees fit to file its traverse under Vernon’s Ann. Code Cr. Proc. 1916, art. 841, and the court hears evidence upon the issue thus made.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;942(l) — Newly discovered IMPEACHING EVIDENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE NEW TRIAL.
    Action of the trial court in denying a motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, wholly impeaching in character, will not be reversed.
    3. CRIMINAL LAW c&wkey;1159(4)—CREDIBILITY OB' EVIDENCE FOB JURY.
    On appeal in a criminal case, an argument that the conviction was had on perjured testimony cannot be considered, where enough facts were in evidence to justify the belief of the jury in the guilt of accused, and to support their finding; the credibility of the witnesses being ordinarily for the jury.
    Appeal from District Court, Leon County; Ben. H. Powell, Judge.
    Lee Washington was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

It appears from the record that at a former trial of this cause in the court below the jury convicted appellant of manslaughter, which verdict was set asidé, and that on the instant trial he was again convicted of manslaughter, and a verdict of two years’ confinement in the penitentiary assessed against him.

No briefs are on file for appellant, and but one contention appears to be made in the motion for new trial, the same being that of newly discovered, evidence. Appellant attached to his motion, setting up the above ground and duly sworn to, the affidavits of the two parties whose evidence is alleged to be newly discovered. No controverting plea, or traverse of the matters contained in said motion, was filed by the state, and no evidence heard by the lower court at the time of the presentation of said motion. We believe it correct practice when a motion for a new trial, setting up newly discovered evidence, is properly sworn to, and the affidavits of the witnesses from whom such new evidence is expected, are attached to and made a part of said motion, that same shall be considered as properly before the trial court and this court, and that such matters of evidence must be taken as true, unless the state sees fit to file its traverse under our article 841, Vernon’s Code of Criminal Procedure, and the court hear evidence upon the issue thus made. Stallworth v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 428, 147 S. W. 238; Vernon’s C. C. P. p. 806, notes 12, 13.

In the instant case, appellant attached to -his motion setting up newly discovered evidence the affidavits of J. J. Durst and T. H. Flint. Examining said affidavits, it appears that each sets out as the purported newly discovered evidence only statements made by one George Simpson, a witness for the state, after the alleged homicide, which statements are purported to have been made by said Simpson to the affiants, and which statements are contradictory of testimony given on the trial by said Simpson. Such-being the case, the proposed testimony of Durst and Flint is wholly impeaching in character, and would be admissible upon trial for no other purpose; and the uniform holding of this court in such ease, as far as we are aware, is that we will not reverse. Section 202, Branch’s Ann. Penal Code, and authorities; Johnson v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. R. 635, 187 S. W. 336; Mays v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. R. 75, 179 S. W. 1192; McHenry v. State, 76 Tex. Cr. R. 273, 173 S. W. 1020; Taylor v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. R. 20, 169 S. W. 672.

In oral argument, appellant urged that the conviction was had on perjured testimony, and therefore should not stand. These matters are ordinarily for the jury. The witnesses were before them. We observe that said witnesses were mainly negroes; and, while there is no question that contradictions appear in their testimony, enough facts were in evidence to justify the belief of .the jury in the guilt of appellant, and to support their finding. The case has been tried twice, each trial resulting in his conviction.

No error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.