Case ID: sw_290/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAKER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GAULDEN v. STATE.
    (No. 10515.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 12, 1927.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;>1088(l8) — Bill of exceptions, containing copy of motion for new trial, adds nothing to strength of motion.
    Bill of exceptions consisting of copy of motion for new trial, adds nothing to strength of motion.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;I09l (2) — Bill of exceptions, failing to set our errors complained of with proper degree of certainty, held defective.
    Bill of exceptions, setting out different matters not pertaining to each other separately, and failing to set out errors complained of with proper degree of certainty, held defective.
    3. Criminal law i&wkey;938(2) — New trial for want of evidence of witness testifying at examining trial held properly denied, evidence not being newly discovered.
    New trial for want of testimony of one who testified at examining trial was properly denied; evidence not being newly discovered and no proper excuse being shown why witness was not placed on stand.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District- Court, Galveston County; J. O. Canty, Judge.
    G. Gaulden was convicted of failing to stop and render assistance to a person struck by an automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    O. S. Tork and J. S. Jackson, both- of Galveston, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., óf Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

The appellant was convicted in the district court of Galveston county of the offense of failing to stop and render assistance to a person struck by an .automobile, and his punishment -assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year and one day.

There is in the record but one bill of exception and this appears to be a copy of the appellant’s motion for new trial, in which he brings forward seven different grounds and reasons why a new trial should have been granted him, including a statement of what he could prove by one Cherry Dupree, to which there is attached the affidavit of the said Dupree stating that he was in the “truck” with the appellant at the time of the alleged offense and setting out what he swore to on the examining trial and would have sworn to if placed upon the witness stand in the instant case. This court, in the case of Stubbs v. State, 71 Tex, Cr. R. 390, 160 S.W. 87, held that a bill of exception embracing a motion for new trial added nothing to the strength thereof. This bill, as presented, is also defective in setting out, in seven different paragraphs, different matters not pertaining to each other, and in failing .to set out, within itself, the error or errors complained of with that degree of certainty which is required under the decisions of this court. Nugent v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 273 S. W. 598.

It might also be said in passing that it appears from said bill and the record that the appellant’s greatest complaint is to the action of the court in refusing to grant a new trial for the want of the testimony of the said Dupree. The affidavit attached to the motion states that Dupree was present at the time of the accident and was in the “truck” with the appellant, and that he testified in the examining trial of this case; therefore, it certainly could not be contended that the court committed error in refusing to grant a new trial for the want of the desired evidence, because same was not newly discovered evidence and there is no proper excuse showing why the witness was not placed upon the stand by the appellant in the trial of this case. We fail to see any error in the court’s ruling in this particular. For collation of authorities, see article 753, subsec. é (28), Vernon’s O. C. P. 1925.

After a careful examination of the entire record, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      <gxjFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes