Court Opinion

ID: 9683717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:35:39.991247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:49.877408
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
The entire record has again been reviewed in the light of appellant’s able motion for rehearing. We shall discuss the matters raised therein.
Bill of Exceptions No. 1 complains of the failure to grant his first application for continuance. The indictment in the case at bar was returned on August 29, 1950. The case was set for trial oh September 4, and the application for the subpoena for the witness, who did not appear, was made on September 11. Trial was had on September 18, from this we gather that the process for this witness was requested thirteen days after the indictment and seven days before the trial. In Huffman v. State, 107 Tex. Crim. Rep. 188, 296 S.W. 313, issuance of process two weeks after indictment and one week before trial was held not to show diligence. In Mitchell v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R. 278, 36 S.W. 456, process procured three days after indictment and eight days before trial was held not to show diligence.
There is no showing in the bill of the exercise of any diligence other than the above.
Art. 543, C.C.P., provides that the application for continuance must make it appear to the court that the facts expected to be *191proved by the witness were material to his defense. To an attorney familiar with the facts of his case, such materiality might be apparent, while to the judge, not so informed, such would not necessarily be so discernible. It is incumbent upon appellant to bring the materiality of such desired testimony home to the judge in his application. This, we feel, was not done in this case.
Our attention is next directed to Bill of Exceptions No. 12 wherein appellant complains of the trial court’s failure to grant his motion for new trial. “A motion for new trial cannot be made a substitute for or take the place of a bill of exception. Matters which should be presented by bills of exception reserving complaint as to rulings of the court during the trial may not be brought simply forward by setting up complaint in a motion for new trial, or by taking a bill of exceptions to the overruling of a motion for new trial setting up such matters as grounds of the motion.” 4 Tex. Juris, Sec. 148, p. 206. This bill presents nothing for review, insofar, as it deals with matters occurring during the course of the trial.
We now come to consideration of that portion of said bill dealing with jury misconduct, together with the other bills relating thereto, and the statement of facts adduced upon the hearing on the motion. Each of these instruments appears in question and answer form, and none of them contains a certificate from the trial court that such form was necessary. Art. 760, C.C.P., provides that the statement of facts shall be in the narrative form and so shall the bills of exception unless the trial court certifies that the questions and answers are necessary. In view of the above statute and the long line of unbroken decisions of this court, we find ourselves without authority to consider the same. Since we have nothing before us which we may consider, the presumption that the trial court did not abuse his discretion controls.
In this connection attention is directed to the rule that a bill of exceptions becomes an unamendable instrument once the appeal is perfected and the time for filing such bills has expired, because the trial court is then without jurisdiction to make any order whatsoever in the case. For this court to allow the filing of amendments or additions to bills in cases on appeal would so complicate and delay the adjudication of a cause of action that this court might never remain current with its docket. This we *192must do in order to properly perform our function in the judicial system.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.