Court Opinion

ID: 9760120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:40:48.03125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:08.424396
License: Public Domain

*258ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Judge.
Appellant again insists that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. The testimony claimed to be newly discovered is that of Tom Wright. In addition to Wright’s testimony, as related in the original opinion, it is further shown that he testified that he was an “habitual” and thorough reader of the newspapers; and that he knew nothing about this case until he read in the newspaper that appellant, whom he had known since childhood and had seen frequently, had been given seven years in the penitentiary for robbery.
Appellant’s name appeared in the indictment as Tex James Cassidy and the indictment alleged the offense to have been committed on or about May 23, 1958.
The state in rebuttal called the supervisor of the reference room of the Star Telegram which clips and files news items appearing therein. She testified that there appeared in the evening issue of said paper on May 24, 1958, the lead line, “Ex City Detective Jailed in Holdup,” followed by an article of three columns of 8, 4 and 4 inches in length in which appeared the name of the appellant as the person charged with the commission of the robbery.
The truth or probable effect of the claimed newly discovered evidence is primarily for the trial judge who passes upon the motion for new trial, and this court will not interfere with his action in denying the motion, if under all the facts no abuse of his judicial discretion is shown. Art. 757, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.; 31 Texas Jur. 284-285, Secs. 84 and 85; 1 Branch’s Ann. P.C. 2d 255-256, Secs. 222 and 223.
It is concluded that the trial court, upon all the evidence offered, did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.