Case Name: HUGHES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1920-02-11
Citations: 218 S.W. 1048
Docket Number: No. 5672
Parties: HUGHES v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 218
Pages: 1048–1049

Head Matter:
HUGHES v. STATE.
(No. 5672.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb. 11, 1920.
On Motion for Rehearing, March 3, 1920.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;>603(ll) — Denial of continuance TO PROCURE TESTIMONY OF ABSENT WITNESS NOT ERROR, WHERE APPLICATION FAILED TO SHOW WHEN SUBPCENA WAS ISSUED.
Where the application for continuance failed to show when a subpoena for an absent witness was issued, and no date was mentioned nor copy of subpoena attached, the denial of defendant’s motion for continuance to procure the testimony of such witness was not error, as legal diligence was not shown.
2. Criminal law <&wkey; 1097(3) — In the absence OF STATEMENT OF FACTS, DENIAL OF CONTINUANCE FOR ABSENCE OF WITNESS CANNOT BE REVIEWED.
In the absence of a statement of fact, the appellate court cannot determine the materiality of the testimony desired from an absent witness so as to determine whether the denial of a continuance was erroneous.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;406(2) — Statements by ACCUSED LEADING TO DISCOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY ADMISSIBLE THOUGH HE WAS NOT WARNED.
Statements and admissions made by defendant which led to the finding of the alleged stolen property are admissible, though made under arrest and without warning.
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Criminal law <&wkey;1160 — Appboved verdict ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WILL NOT BE DISTURBED.
Where there is a mere conflict of evidence, the appellate court will decline to interfere and will approve the action of the trial court in , overruling a motion for new trial on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; R. B. Seay, Judge.
Lucian Hughes was convicted of felony theft, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Will S. Payne, of Dallas, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
LATTIMORE, J.
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 Ollie 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 exception, 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.
©soFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes