Case Name: McDUFF v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-16
Citations: 236 S.W. 99
Docket Number: No. 6467
Parties: McDUFF v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 236
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
McDUFF v. STATE.
(No. 6467.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 16, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1922.)
1. Jury <@=>70(l) — Special venire held proper-'y refused in rokbery case.
Where indictment in robbery case' made no reference to the use of firearms, and the case was not submitted to the jury as a capital offense, there was no error in refusing a special venire.
2. Criminal law <§=>595(9) — No abuse of discretion in refusing continuance.
In a prosecution for robbery, where accused testified to the defense of alibi, and said that he was at the home of a certain person, held, that court did not abuse its discretion in denying an application for a continuance on account of the absence by reason of sickness of the person at whose home accused testified he was, the time ne was at such person’s home being indefinite.
Appeal from Criminal Distliet Court, Dallas County; C. A. Pippen, Judge.
Lewis MeDuff was convicted of robbery, and appeals.
Affirmed.
Ed B. Freeman, Howard H. Dailey, J. T. Kelly, and P. C. Short, all of Dallas, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for robbery; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of 25 years.
The indictment makes no reference to the use of firearms, and the case was not submitted to the jury as a capital offense. There was no error in refusing a special venire. Gonzales v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 250, 226 S. W. 405.
The robbery was committed at nighttime, and the appellant was definitely identified by the injured party as the perpetrator of the offense. He lived near by, and was well known to the witness.
Appellant testified to the defense of alibi. His testimony on the subject was indefinite as to the time of the day, but in it he said that he went to the home of his sister-in-law, Mattie Parton, and made some coffee. He presented an application for a continuance on account of the absence of Mattie Par-ton, who, at the time of the trial, was alleged to have been sick. A subpoena was issued and served upon her upon the day of the trial. The application was indefinite, and alleged in general terms that, at the time of the offense, appellant was at the home of Mattie Parton. It appears from the facts developed that the appellant, the injured party, and Mattie Parton were all residents of the same locality. The affidavit of the witness to the effect that she would not give the testimony was used on the motion for new trial. We are unable to conclude that, in overruling the motion to continue or the motion for a new trial, the court abused the discretion which is vested in it by law.
No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
<@=>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes