Court Opinion

ID: 9770487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:06:19.377646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:17.762720
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
*510MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant urges us to review the ruling of the court in refusing to grant his motion for continuance in order that he might secure the testimony of Alice Wofford. There is no affidavit from the witness attached to the motion for continuance or the amended motion for new trial showing what the said witness would have testified to had she been present. There was no showing of unavailability of the witness to make such an affidavit. The amended motion for new trial is not sworn to nor do we find attached thereto the affidavit of the missing witness.
In Morris v. State, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 516, 251 S. W. 2d 731, in discussing a motion for new trial, we said:
“The motion should have had the affidavit of the missing witness or a showing, under oath, from some other source that the witness would have actually testified to such facts.”
Without satisfactory proof to the contrary, the trial court might reasonably conclude that the witness would not have so testified. See also Belrose v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. Rep. 323, 242 S. W. 2d 378.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.