Martin v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Appellant was prosecuted, by information, for the theft of a pair of gloves, the property of one T. S. Mooney. At the trial he was convicted, and his punishment affixed at imprisonment in the county jail one month and by a fine of $5. All the facts necessary to explain the points decided are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Judge.
This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction of theft of gloves.
1. Continuance was applied for by appellant to obtain the testimony of an absent witness, by whom he expected to prove, ‘ ‘ that at the time he is charged with committing this offense he was not in a situation to com mit said offense.” The application does not state a single fact expected to be testified by the witness. Inferences, conclusions, general statements, or indefinite allegations will not suffice to take the place of evidence. The facts must be stated. Willson’s Crim. Proc., sec. 2165.
2. The defendant…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Brown v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Harris v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1912
- Anderson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1895
- Shield v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Wilson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1916
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.