Case Name: Johnnie Waggoner v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1916-12-06
Citations: 80 Tex. Crim. 470
Docket Number: No. 4291
Parties: Johnnie Waggoner v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 470–475

Head Matter:
Johnnie Waggoner v. The State.
No. 4291.
Decided December 6, 1916.
Rehearing refused December 27, 1916.
1. —Local Option—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of a violation of the local option law, the evidence, although conflicting, sustained the conviction under a proper charge of the court, there was no reversible error.
2. —Same—Evidence—Moral Turpitude.
Upon trial of a violation of the local option law, there was no error in excluding testimony that the State’s main witness had committed ga, misdemeanor; besides, he had neither been indicted nor prosecuted therefor.
8.—Same—Newly Discovered Evidence—Motion for New Trial.
Where the testimony concerning newly discovered evidence was not filed during the term of the trial court, it can not be considered on appeal; besides, such testimony was not newly discovered, if the record were considered.
4. —Same—Rehearing—Motion for New Trial—Statement of Facts—Bill of Exceptions.
Where appellant, in a motion for rehearing contended that this court was mistaken in stating in the original opinion that a statement of facts of the testimony heard by the lower court on defendant’s motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was not filed during term ^time, but the transcript showed that this court was correct, there was no reversible error. However, as appellant’s bill of exceptions recites this testimony which was filed in time, this court will pass thereon, and again holds that the alleged newly discovered testimony could have been secured on defendant’s trial.
5. —Same—Rule Stated—Newly Discovered Evidence—Practice on Appeal.
Applications for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will be closely .scrutinized by the appellate court, as they are addressed in the first instance, to the discretion of the trial court, and unless the latter has abused his discretion, and injustice has thereby been done the defendant, this court will not review it.
6. —Same—Diligence—Buie Stated.
Where the alleged newly discovered testimony is of such character that defendant must necessarily have known of its existence prior to the trial, anil the trial court in the exercise of his sound discretion has refused a new trial, the judgment will not be reversed.
7. —Same—Diligence—Buie Stated.
The defendant must satisfy the court that the alleged new testimony has come to his knowledge since the trial and that it was not owing to the want of due diligence that it was not sooner discovered.
8. —Same—Buie Stated—Diligence.
A new trial will not be granted for testimony claimed to be newly discovered which could have been secured at the trial by the use of ordinary diligence.
9. —Same—Bequested Charge—Practice on Appeal.
Where defendant’s requested charge was partly embraced in the main charge and in a requested charge given, there was no error in refusing such charge.
Appeal from the County Court of Nacogdoches. Tried below before the Hon. J. F. Perritte.
Appeal from a conviction of a violation of the local option law; penalty, a fine of twenty-five dollars and twenty days confinement in the county jail.
The opinion states the case.
Xing & Seale, for appellant.
On question of newly discovered evidence: Stewart v. State, 52 Texas Crim. Rep., 100; Reed v. State, 27 Texas Crim. App., 317.
G. G. McDonald, Assistant Attorney Genera^, for the State.

Opinion:
PBENDEBGAST, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of selling intoxicating liquors in Nacogdoches County, where prohibition was in force, and assessed the lowest punishment.
The testimony -by the State's witness was positive and unequivocal to the effect that appellant, at the time alleged, sold to him, in said county, intoxicating liquors, and that he did not deliver it to him under an agreement before then that he ordered it for said witness and merely delivered it to him without making any sale. The testimony on the appellant's side disputes this, and he had other testimony corroborating his own. This was a question for the jury and the lower court. They had all the witnesses before them, heard them testify, and saw them while testifying, and their credibility was a question for the lower court and not this. We can not, therefore, disturb the verdict.
The main charge of the court and that specially requested by appellant which was given by the court submit every issue in favor of appel lant that was raised hy the testimony, and the court properly refused others requested by appellant. Nor do appéllant's objections to the court's charge show any error.
The court properly excluded the proposed testimony by appellant to the effect that the State's main witness had made a single, sale of intoxicating liquor, for the purpose of impeaching him. The offense, if any, was merely a misdemeanor. He had neither been indicted nor prosecuted therefor. The law is well settled and needs no citation of cases, to the effect that no witness can be thus impeached.
Appellant complains that the court erred in not granting him a new trial on the ground of claimed newly discovered testimony. The record shows that the court heard testimony on this during term time in ruling on his motion for new trial. This testimony was not filed during term time but nearly twenty days later. Hence, under the uniform decisions, and many of them, of this court, such matter can not be reviewed. However, to take appellant's motion and the affidavit of the witness whose testimony was claimed to be newly discovered, it would clearly show that it was not newly discovered, for the affidavit, in substance, shows that he was present at the time when appellant claims he made an agreement with the prosecuting witness to order for him, and some additional for himself, the liquor the State's witness testified had been sold to him by appellant, and his whole affidavit would exclude the idea that his testimony was newly discovered.
There was no error in the trial, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HARPER, Judge, absent.