Acosta v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The opinion states the case.
1Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
HAWKINS, Judge. —
Appellant renews his contention that he should have been awarded a new trial because of the claimed newly discovered evidence of Joe Acosta. Said witness’ affidavit is attached to the motion for new trial. Nowhere in said affidavit does the witness say that he did not before the trial acquaint appellant with the facts which witness in his affidavit claimed to know. Appellant was not confined in jail; he was out on bond up to the time of his trial, was related to witness and lived not far from him. Upon the hearing of the motion for new trial appellant’s…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1928
- Rollins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1932
- Noble v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Waster v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1933
- Mershon v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1932