Court Opinion

ID: 9679809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:08:28.37334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:21.136690
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
In our original opinion we said, “In the absence of an exception to the action of the court in changing the venue being taken in the District Court of Cameron County at the proper time, no error is shown.”
Appellant’s able counsel has now caused the record to be perfected to show that the following transpired in the district court of Cameron County:
“The Court: The Court feels that, three hundred and sixty veniremen and talesmen having been exhausted without the selection of a jury, that the case should be changed — the venue should be changed, and I am going to change the venue of the *610case, feeling we are unable to select a jury in this case in this County to try you. I am going to send it to Williamson County, Texas.
“Mr. Skaggs: Is that Georgetown?
“The Court: Yes, sir. On the Court’s own motion.
“Mr. Skaggs: On the Court’s own motion?
“The Court: Yes, sir. Your attorneys appointed by the Court here are hereby relieved of further responsibility in connection with this case, and we will ask the Court at Georgetown to appoint adequate counsel to represent you.
“Mr. Skaggs: The defendant excepts to the Court’s action in moving the cause to Williamson County—
“The Court: For what reason?
“Mr. Skaggs: For the reason that we don’t believe it is a proper place to move it. Williamson County is well noted for its excessive or large verdicts in Criminal cases.
“The Court: Is that the only reason?
“Mr. Skaggs: And for any other legal reason that there may be.”
When the cause was called for trial in Williamson County the appellant asked that it be returned to Cameron County, alleging' that Williamson County was too far removed from Cameron County and that such fact would operate to appellant’s prejudice.
As will be seen from that which is quoted above, such a contention was not made in the court which originally changed the venue.
We find no suggestion or proof made in the court changing the venue that any of the intervening counties were free from the objections which the appellant had leveled at the Rio Grande Valley counties in his motion for change of venue filed when the case was called.
We do not hold that it would be within the discretion of a trial court to arbitrarily transfer a case from one side of the state to another. But we do hold that it is incumbent upon an accused, when a trial court enters an order changing venue, to there show that the trial court abused his discretion. This he did not do in the case at bar.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.