Court Opinion

ID: 9769927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:08:10.470909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:09.260288
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant again stresses the matters set forth in Bill of Exceptions No. 2 and contends that she has been deprived of her statutory, as well as her constitutional rights, by being denied the privilege of being heard at her trial by herself, her counsel, or both, in that on the day prior to the one set for trial, appellant’s attorneys, having previously filed a plea to the jurisdiction, desired to make an oral argument relative thereto, which argument the judge presiding refused to hear.
Appellant’s bill relative to the above matter was not approved by the trial court, who disallowed the same and filed one of his own in lieu thereof. In such court’s bill it was shown that this cause was set for trial on January 17, 1950; that prior to such date and any announcement of ready on January 6, 1950, appellant presented witnesses who were heard by the court relative to the juvenility of appellant, and after said witnesses were heard, the trial court refused to hear argument thereon; and this exception is based upon such refusal. The court’s reason for such action seems to be based upon the proposition that he had discussed this matter with one of appellant’s attorneys on a previous day, who had presented some authorities relative thereto ; that the court had made a thorough study of the law governing every possible theory of the case and was familiar with the decisions relative thereto and had not only familiarized himself therewith but had also discussed the same with appellant’s attorney. He therefore felt that in the interest of expediting this trial there was no reason to hear further argument nor further presentation of cases to which he had already ^been referred and which he had read and studied. Undoubtedly the trial court must have the right and privilege to govern the proceedings had in his presence and maintain proper order and decorum in his court. It is not every conceivable procedure in a court in which an accused shall be “heard by himself, or counsej, or both” as was held in the case of Leahy v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 570, 13 S.W. (2d) 874.
In the present instance, appellant’s attorney had previously gone into the matters set forth in such plea and familiarized the trial court with his ideas relative thereto, and when such mat*110ter was again alluded to on the day prior to the calling of the case for trial and announcement of ready, the trial court evidently having made up its mind, refused to again have these matters discussed, but correctly overruled such plea and on the following day proceeded with the trial. The matters presented in this plea have been recently ruled upon by this court, and in accord with the line of decisions thereon, as shown in the original opinion, appellant was put to trial and we think correctly so.
This Bill No. 2 evidences a correct ruling upon the part of the careful trial judge, and being impressed with the thought that this cause has been properly tried, the motion for a rehearing is overruled.