Case Name: Lucian Hughes v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-02-11
Citations: 86 Tex. Crim. 611
Docket Number: No. 5672
Parties: Lucian Hughes v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 611–613

Head Matter:
Lucian Hughes v. The State.
No. 5672.
Decided February 11, 1920.
Rehearing denied March 3, 1920.
1.—Theft—Continuance—Want of Diligence.
Where the application for continuance showed upon its face a want of diligence, the same was properly overruled.
,2.—Same—Declarations by Defendant—Arrest.
Where defendant was not under arrest when he made certain declarations which led to the finding of the stolen goods, there was no error in admitting the same in evidence.
3.—Same—Rehearing—Continuance—Want of Diligence.
Where the application for continuance did not show when the alleged subpoena for the absent witness was issued and no copy of said subpoena was attached to the application, the same was correctly overruled.
á,—Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence—Conflict of Testimony.
Where the evidence is sufficient to convict, although conflicting, there is no reversible error.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Hon. R. B. Seay, judge.
Appeal from a conviction of felony theft; penalty, three years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Will S. Payne, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.—
On question of continuance: Keeton v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 316; Boyd v. State, 57 id., 647.
On question of sufficiency of the evidence: Torrence v. State, 212 S. W. Rep., 957; Windham v. State, 67 Texas Crim. Rep., 664, 150 S. W. Rep., 613.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, Judge.
—The appellant in this case was convicted of felony theft, in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, and given two years in the penitentiary.
The case comes before us without a statement of facts, and but two bills of exceptions. The first- of these is to the action of the trial court in overruling appellant's motion for a continuance, asked for the purpose of obtaining the testimony of one Oll-ie Lanksford. An examination of the record discloses that the application for continuance fails to disclose when the subpoena for said witness was issued. No date was mentioned in the application, and no copy of said subpoena was attached. Legal diligence is not shown by appellant, and the motion was properly denied. In the absence of a statement of facts we' cannot decide as to the materiality of the testimony of the absent witness.
Appellant has also a bill of exception to the testimony as to statements and admissions made by him, as recited in the body of the bill, while under arrest and unwarned. The trial court states in his explanation approving said bill of exceptions that at the time of making such statements or admissions, the appellant was not under arrest, and that said statements led to the finding of the alleged stolen property; in which latter event we have always held such statements admissible, even though made under arrest and without being warned.
The charge of the trial court and the indictment seem to be in conformity with law.
No error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
A ffirmed.'