Court Opinion

ID: 9858703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:35:05.428957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:31.853083
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant has urged that we refuse to consider the testimony of jurors Sramek and Gary because of certain inconsistencies found in their testimony under the rule which has been given application in civil cases in Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 *855S.W. 583. We need not decide whether to give application to such rule in criminal cases, because we do not find that a definite issue was made at the hearing on motion for new trial. The juror Hall stated that the positive statement was made and that it was made by Merlin Gary. Gary unequivocally stated that he made no such statement.
The issue of fact was decided by the trial court and is binding on this Court under the rule announced in Walton v. State, 398 S. W.2d 555.
Appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.