Court Opinion

ID: 9767812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:28:02.165593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:33.208391
License: Public Domain

on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
The questions discussed in appellant’s motion for rehearing were treated sufficiently in the opinion affirming the case. In view of the insistence of diligent counsel, however, we have again reviewed the record and find that it justifies the statement made as to Bills of Exception No. 1 and No. 5, which complain of the court’s failure to grant appellant’s first motion for continuance. As the record stands it is fully within the discretion of the trial court and we find no basis for holding that such discretion was abused. What counsel now states as to the unavailability of appellant’s son for the purpose of making a supporting affidavit, either at the time of the motion for continuance or at the time of the trial, is not supported by anything in the record. We are not permitted to consider questions of fact injected by brief or argument unless they are found in the record itself.
The next question discussed in the motion for rehearing relates to the bill complaining of the failure of the court to permit cross-examination of the prosecuting witness as to his former conviction for a felony. The state’s objection to this testimony, sustained by the court, was that it was too remote. This raised the issue. So far as we know it might have been a matter of court record of which the trial judge could take judicial knowledge. The burden shifted to appellant to show that it was not too remote. This was not done and the force of the bill of exception, if any it had, was lost.
The original opinion correctly disposed of the case and the motion for rehearing is overruled.