Barnes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Barnes v. State

261 S.W.2d 597, 159 Tex. Crim. 78, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1782

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 21, 1953

Docket26524

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 261 S.W.2d 597 (Barnes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnes v. State, 261 S.W.2d 597, 159 Tex. Crim. 78, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1782 (Tex. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.00.

*79 No statement of facts accompanies the record.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for continuance. In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to appraise this bill.

Also, the motion recites that appellant learned the identity of the witnesses desired on February 17. The state’s answer to the motion, filed on February 19, has attached thereto an affidavit of the county clerk reciting that no application for subpoena for any witness had been made by appellant. It is axiomatic that an accused is required to use diligence in securing the attendance of his witnesses; and since he failed to apply for subpoenas, no error is shown by the court’s action in overruling his motion for continuance.

Bills of Exception Nos. 2 and 3 relate to jury argument. The argument set forth violated no mandatory statute; and since we have no statement of facts from which we may appraise the propriety thereof, we are unable to say that the same was injurious to appellant. Elliott v. State, 156 Texas Crim. Rep. 502, 243 S. W. 8d 839.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.00.

*79 No statement of facts accompanies the record.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains of the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for continuance. In the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to appraise this bill.

Also, the motion recites that appellant learned the identity of the witnesses desired on February 17. The state’s answer to the motion, filed on February 19, has attached thereto an affidavit of the county clerk reciting that no application for subpoena for any witness had been made by appellant. It is axiomatic that an accused is required to use diligence in securing the attendance of his witnesses; and since he failed to apply for subpoenas, no error is shown by the court’s action in overruling his motion for continuance.

Bills of Exception Nos. 2 and 3 relate to jury argument. The argument set forth violated no mandatory statute; and since we have no statement of facts from which we may appraise the propriety thereof, we are unable to say that the same was injurious to appellant. Elliott v. State, 156 Texas Crim. Rep. 502, 243 S. W. 8d 839.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.W.2d 597, 159 Tex. Crim. 78, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-state-texcrimapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack