Court Opinion

ID: 9770903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:24:43.075931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:21.981719
License: Public Domain

on state’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
We are cited to the recent case of Richardson v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 513, 244 S.W. 2d 222, in support of the state’s contention that appellant failed to use diligence to secure his witnesses in that he caused no subpoena to be issued.
It is evident that we failed to take cognizance of the fact that Richardson was charged in the county court with a misdemeanor and that the statutes provide no procedure for obtaining the issuance of a subpoena out of the county court for an out county witness.
Article 475 C.C.P., et seq., as originally enacted, (Acts. 1st Called Session 1897, p. 58) apply alone to the district court, grand jury and examining courts.
Resort may be had to the original enactment if there be doubt as to the meaning of the compiled statutes. Stevens v. State, 70 Texas Cr. Rep. 565, 159 S.W. 505.
*142In Cothren v. State, 139 Texas Cr. Rep. 644, 141 S.W. 2d 594, we said that the absent witness was out of the county and not amenable to a subpoena issued out of the county court.
Insofar as the opinion in Richardson v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 513, 244 S.W. 2d 222, may be inconsistent with the holding in our original opinion herein, it is overruled.
Our reference to Bill of Exception No. 20 was not entirely accurate and will be withdrawn.
The error pointed out in Bill No. 20 is that the trial judge, in the presence of the jury, severely criticized counsel for not having a written motion for continuance prepared before the state announced ready for trial; declined to grant counsel time to prepare their motion in writing before acting on it; threatened to forfeit the appearance bond under which appellant was at liberty and announced that the motion for continuance presented orally could be later reduced to writing but would be overruled.
The trial court was in error in stating that the law requires the motion for continuance to be prepared before the state announces. We agree that in the interest of time this should be done where counsel is aware of the fact that a material witness will not appear. However, the time for the defendant to finally learn whether his witnesses are present is after the state has announced ready and he is called upon to make his announcement.
Whether such announcements are called for before the jury panel is to appear, or a sufficient time in advance of its appearing to prevent delay, is for the trial judge in his discretion.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.