Court Opinion

ID: 9642721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:07:44.199826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:51.772218
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DAVIDSON, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant presses upon us his contention that we erred in holding that he was lacking in diligence in not discovering, prior to the motion for new trial, the testimony of the policemen as to the finding of the beer bottles in the apartment of the prosecutrix and the latter’s admission that she had drunk beer with the appellant.
Appellant calls attention to the fact that we stated in our original opinion that the testimony of the policemen would have been admissible upon the main trial. He insists, therefore, that, because of the particular facts of the case under which it could hardly have been foreseen by him or his counsel that the testimony of the policemen would have been material to his defense, we should not apply the strict rule of diligence which we have here applied.
Appellant’s insistence is not without its appeal. Such, however, could be said of most all cases involving newly discovered evidence.
We have concluded that the disposition made of the question of newly discovered evidence does not rest, alone, upon a lack of diligence to ascertain the absent testimony.
Newly discovered evidence warrants the granting of a new trial when, among other things, it appears that a different result would likely have been reached had such evidence been presented at the trial. Henson v. State, 150 Tex. Cr. R. 344, 200 S.W. 2d 1007.
Here, the trial court, in the exercise of his discretion, upon *366the hearing of the motion for new trial, in overruling the motion, concluded that a different result would not likely have been reached.
To overturn that conclusion, we must find an abuse of discretion by the trial court. This we are unable to do, under the facts presented.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.