Case ID: sw_292/html/1117-04.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

Toots GRANT v. STATE.
    (No. 10733.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 2, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied April 6, 1927.
    Appeal from District Court, Wood County;
    J. R. Warren, Judge.
    A. J. Britton and Bozeman & Cathey, all of. Quitman, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction of burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary. The record is before us without any bills of exception or statement of facts. The indictment sufficiently charges the offense, and the charge of the court applies the law. No error appearing in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion fer Rehearing.

Appellant seeks a rehearing on the proposition that, the court erred in declining to grant him a new trial because of newly discovered testimony. The motion for new trial set up the fact that by a number of witnesses appellant could prove that he was a kleptomaniac; that is, a person who has an irresistible impulse to steal. Appellant’s attorney is one of the party who makes the affidavit that such fact can be established in behalf of the accused. Certainly, if it was known to appellant’s attorney that such was the situation of his client, the testimony could in no sense be said to be newly discovered. We do not think the learned trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. The motion for rehearing will be refused. ♦