Case Name: Lewis McDuff v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-11-16
Citations: 90 Tex. Crim. 557
Docket Number: No. 6467
Parties: Lewis McDuff v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 90
Pages: 557–559

Head Matter:
Lewis McDuff v. The State.
No. 6467.
Decided November 16, 1921.
Rehearing denied January 18, 1922.
1. — Robbery—Special Venire — Capital Offense — Firearms.
Where the indictment for robbery makes no reference to the use of firearms, and the case was not submitted as a capital offense, there was no error in refusing a special venire. Following Gonzales v. State, 88 Texas Crim. Rep., 250.
2. — Same—Sufficiency of the Evidence — Continuance—Motion for New Trial.
Where appellant complained of the court’s action in overruling his application for continuance, but the motion for new trial showed that the alleged absent witness would not give the testimony as alleged in the applica tion for continuance, there was no error in the court’s overruling the motion for new trial.
3. — Same—Rehearing—Continuance—Alibi—Conclusion.
Where, upon trial for robbery, defendant in his application for continuance gave no details as to the hour of day at which he was at the place alleged in his application, and it is only a conclusion upon which he relies that he was there when the offense was committed, the same was properly overruled.
4. — Same—Motion for New Trial — Practice on Appeal — Rehearing—Discretion of Court.
Where appellant in his motion for rehearing again contended that his application for continuance should have been granted, but in the light of the facts developed upon the trial and upon the hearing of the motion for new trial, the action of the trial judge in overruling the motion for new trial was clearly not an abuse of discretion, there was no reversible error.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court of Dallas. Tried below before the Honorable C. A. Pippen.
Appeal from a conviction of robbery; penalty, twenty-five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
Ed. B. Freeman, Howard H. Dailey and J. T. Kelley, for appellant.—
On question of continuance: Covey v. State, 23 Texas Crim. App., 388; Land v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 330; Gaines v. State, 150 5. W. Rep., 199.
R. G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
MORROW, Presiding Judge.
Conviction is for robbery; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of twenty-five years.
The indictment makes no reference to the use of fire-arms; 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 Texas Crim. Rep., 250.
The robbery was committed at night-time, and the appellant was definitely identified by the injured party as the- perpetrator of the offense. He lived nearby 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 house 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 Parton, 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 con-time 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.
Affirmed.