Randle v. State
188 S.W.2d 981, 188 S.W. 981, 80 Tex. Crim. 115, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 421
Opinion
Appellant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors in prohibition territory.
In the motion for a new trial appellant claims to have discovered additional testimony. In the absence of a statement of facts, it is impossible for us to determine whether or not this alleged newly discovered testimony would be material. The trial judge evidently held it was not, in overruling the motion for a new trial, and we cannot say he erred with no record of the evidence heard on the trial, nor on the motion, before us.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Randle v. State, 188 S.W.2d 981, 188 S.W. 981, 80 Tex. Crim. 115, 1916 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 421 (Tex. 1916).
188 S.W.2d 981 (Randle v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.