Court Opinion

ID: 9778831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:22:18.061072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:13.883686
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge
(concurring).
The theory that evidence should have been introduced in support of the court’s order changing the venue on his own motion is contrary to the rule in effect since the early case of Cox v. State, 8 Tex. App. 254, 283. There in discussing a change of venue on the court’s own motion the Court of Appeals said:
“The correct doctrine is that the change of venue in any case depends upon whether the judge is satisfied as to its expediency or inexpediency; and his discretion determining it will not be revised unless it is clearly apparent that it has been abused. If, then, the judge is the power that must be primarily and ultimately satisfied, why the necessity of introducing proof to satisfy him, when he is already satisfied without proof? In other words, why prove to him a fact with regard to which, when proved, he must exercise his own discretion, when he is already sufficiently possessed of a knowledge of the fact, and prepared to act upon it on his own motion?”
*323The question of what facts must be established in order to require the court to change the venue on motion of the defendant or of the state is not here involved. The sole question is whether this court should hold that the record shows an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in changing the venue on his own motion. No such abuse of discretion appears.