[§ 836] ff. Evidence of Self-Defense. Where due diligence has been shown to procure absent witnesses, it is error to refuse a continuance to proeure witnesses whose testimony concerning alleged threats or actions of the injured or deceased party would be material to a defendant who seeks to defend on the ground of self-defense.62 The motion for continuance to procure testimony of this character must, however, show the relevancy and materiality of the same; hence if there is not the slightest pretense of self-defense legitimately raised by the facts, as, for instance, where the defense is accidental homicide,65 or where the threats are not of sufficiently grave nature, or have not been communicated to defendant,67 or where it appears that, even though threats were made, accused had no fear of deceased,es or was not in any real or ap 64 63 66 62. Ark.-Cannon v. State, 60 Ark. 564, 31 SW 150, 32 SW 128. Ill-Corbin v. Peo., 131 Ill. 615, 23 NE 613. Ind.-Lofton v. State, 14 Ind. 1. Ky. Clair v. Com., 154 Ky. 711, 159 SW 523; Breeden v. Com., 151 Ky. 217, 151 SW 407; Meredith v. Com., 148 Ky. 106, 146 SW 407; Robinson v. Com., 68 SW 1099, 24 KyL 564; Bowlin v. Com., 94 Ky. 391, 22 SW 543, 15 KyL 149; Vogt v. Com., 92 Ky. 68, 17 SW 213, 13 KyL 376; Gambrel v. Com., 63 SW 272, 23 KyL 502; Costigan v. Com., 12 SW 629, 11 KyL 617; Smith v. Com., 8 SW 192, 9 K/L 1005; Forman v. Com., 7 KyL 667, 681, 13 Ky. Op. 1021; Drake v. Com., 7 KyL 529, 13 Ky. Op. 848; Spradlin v. Com., 7 KyL 529, 13 Ky. Op. 846. Miss.-Scott v. State, 80 Miss. 197, 31 S 710. Tex.-Cameron v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 316, 122 SW 870; Jones v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 123, 113 SW 928; Smith v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 617, 114 SW 827; Roquemore v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 592, 114 SW 140; Morgan v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 542, 113 SW 934; Phillips v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 127, 94 SW 1051; Ware v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 413, 92 SW 1093; Asken v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 362, 364, 83 SW 706 (where it was said: "Appellant's case, if true, was one of self-defense. All of the eyewitnesses who testified on the trial, supported the State's theory, leaving appellant's testimony alone to combat it. If the absent witnesses had testified as stated in the application. they would have strongly suppported appellant's theory, and if the jury believed them, an acquittal would evidently have followed. We are unable to say what the jury would have decided with that testimony before them. In any event, it occurs to us that appellant was entitled to have the evidence of these two absent witnesses before the jury, and have them pass upon their testimony"); Poole v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 348, 76 SW 565; Duffy v. State, (Cr.) 67 SW 418; Cogdell v. State, (Cr.) 63 SW 645; Fant V. State. (Cr.) 57 SW 819: Hardin v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 208, 49 SW 607; Rucker v. State, (Cr.) 40 SW 991; Koller v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. 496, 38 SW 44; Gilcrease v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 619, 28 SW 531; Tankersley v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 595, 21 SW 767; Self v. State, 28 Tex. A. 398, 13 SW 602; Stevens v. State, 27 Tex. A. 461, 11 SW 459. [§ 837] gg. Negative Testimony. It is not error to refuse a continuance to obtain the testimony of a witness which is of a negative character, and which states conclusions of law rather than of fact.72 [§ 838] (d) Cumulative and Impeaching Evidence-aa. Cumulative Evidence in General. erally speaking, it is not error to refuse a continuance when the evidence sought to be introduced by the absent witnesses is merely cumulative,73 and especially is this true where such evidence does not witness competent to testify as to having seen deceased with a knife during a certain stage of the difficulty. Cogdell v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 178, 63 SW 645. [c] Murder of one while defending himself from another.-On a trial for murder, accused is entitled to a continuance to afford him an opportunity to prove that he had no intention or desire to hurt the deceased, but was attempting to cut another in self-defense. Robinson v. Com., 68 SW 1099, 24 KyL 564. 63. Ariz.-Terr. v. Shankland, 3 Ariz. 403, 77 P 492. Ark.-Hamilton v. State, 62 Ark. 543, 36 SW 1054; Thompson v. State, 26 Ark. 323. Ky.-Johnson v. Com., 93 SW 581, 29 KyL 442. Mo.-State v. Cochran, 147 Mo. 504, 49 SW 558. Tex.-McKinney v. State, (Cr.) 30 SW 786. [a] A conditional threat would not be a predicate for a continuance. Harris v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 118, 105 SW 801. [b] General and vague threats. Evidence of previous threats by deceased against accused when general and vague, no time being shown, is immaterial, and a continuance to procure witnesses to testify thereto is properly refused. Highsmith v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 32, 50 SW 723, 51 SW 919. 64. Melton v. State, 24 Tex. A. 47, 5 SW 652. [a] Where the evidence is clear and uncontradicted that deceased was the aggressor in an assault culminating in his killing by accused, it is not error to refuse a continuance for absence of a witness to prove uncommunicated threats by deceased against the life of accused. Turner v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 46 SW 830. 65. Brittain v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 40 SW 297. 66. Halbert v. State, 31 Tex. 357: Dow v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 278, 20 SW 583. 67. Harper v. State, 79 Ark. 594, 96 SW 1003; McGrew v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 49 SW 226; Turner v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 46 SW 830: Steel v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 43 SW 101: Carthaus v. State, 78 Wis. 560, 47 NW 629. SW 312. Gen 71. Harper v. State, 79 Ark. 594, 96 SW 1003; Kitts v. State, 70 Ark. 521, 69 SW 545; Burton v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 149, 148 SW 805; Jones v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 123, 113 SW 928; Ellis v. State, 30 Tex. A. 601, 18 SW 139; Brooks v. State, 24 Tex. A. 274, 5 SW 852; Carter v. State, 8 Tex. A. 372. 72. Moore v. State, 7 Ga. A. 77, 66 SE 377; Shoun v. State, 111 Tenn. 166, 78 SW 91; Dailey v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 55 SW 821; Butler V. State, (Tex. Cr.) 44 SW 1089. 73. Ala.-Gaines v. State, 146 Ala. 16, 41 S 865; Redmond v. State, 4 Ala. A. 190, 59 S 181. Ark.-James v. State, 125 Ark. 269, 188 SW 806; Pool v. State, 121 Ark. 17, 180 SW 339; Owens v. State, 120 Ark. 562, 179 SW 1014; Baldwin v. State, 119 Ark. 518, 178 SW 409; Benson v. State, 112 Ark. 442, 166 SW 549; Davidson v. State, 109 Ark. 450, 160 SW 385; Williams v. State, (Ark.) 151 SW 1011; Hamer v. State, 104 Ark. 606, 150 SW 142; Godard v. State, 100 Ark. 149, 139 SW 1131; Clampett v. State, 91 Ark. 567, 121 SW 934; Johnson v. State, 89 Ark. 46, 115 SW 930; Owen v. State, 86 Ark. 317, 111 SW 466; Vanata V. State, 82 Ark. 203, 101 SW 169; Harper v. State, 79 Ark. 594, 96 SW 1003; Gallaher v. State, 78 Ark. 299, 95 SW 463; Maxey v. State, 66 Ark. 523, 52 SW 2; Sneed v. State, 47 Ark. 180, 1 SW 68. Fla. Maddox v. State, 69 Fla. 695, 69 S 20; Surrency v. State, 48 Fla. 59, 37 S 575; Dorman v. State, 48 Fla. 18, 19, 37 S 561 [cit Cyc]. Ga. Salmons v. State, 118 Ga. 763, 45 SE 611; Blount v. State, 18 Ga. A. 204, 89 SE 78; Howard v. State, 7 Ga. A. 61, 65 SE 1076. Ill.Dacey v. Peo., 116 Ill. 555, 6 NE 165. Ind. T.-Kelley v. U. S., 7 Ind. T. 241, 246, 104 SW 604 [cit Cyc]; Gardner v. U. S., 5 Ind. T. 150, 82 SW 704. Iowa.-State v. Hasty, 121 Iowa 507, 96 NW 1115. Kan.-State v. Wimer, 97 Kan. 353, 155 P 7. Ky.-Sandefur v. Com., 143 Ky. 655, 137 SW 504: Brock v. Com., 110 SW 878, 33 KyL 630: Turner v. Com., 80 SW 197. 25 KyL 2161; Mullins v. Com., 79 SW 258, 25 KyL 2044; Dean v. Com., 78 SW 1112. 25 KyL 1876; Rone v. Com., 70 SW 1042, 24 KyL 1174; Hatfield v. Com., 55 SW 679, 21 KvL 1461: Toliver v. Com., 104 Ky. 760, 47 SW 1082, 20 KvL 906; Young v. Com.. 96 Kv. 573. 29 SW 439, 16 KyL 496; Roberts v. Com., 94 Ky. 68. Stapleton v. Com., 3 SW 793, 499, 22 SW 845, 15 KyL 341; Hall v. 26 KyL 467. [a] Conditional uncommunicated threat.-A continuance of a homicide case on the ground of the absence of a witness cannot be predicated on the fact that the witness would, if present, prove that decedent made a conditional threat not communicated to accused. Harris v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 118. 105 SW 801. [a] Evidence as to who fired first shot-Upon a trial for homicide, defendant, showing diligence, is entitled to a continuance to procure attendance of witnesses to show which of the two respective parties fired the first shot, the fact being material on the theory of self-defense. Hardin v. 403, 77 P 492. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 208, 49 SW 607. 69. Terr. V. Com., 94 Ky. 322, 22 SW 333, 15 KyL Shankland, 3 Ariz. 102; Wilkerson v. Com., 88 Ky. 29, 70. Williams v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. [b] Possession of knife by de-352, 102 SW 1147: Laws v. State, ceased. Where a defendant pleads (Tex. Cr.) 101 SW 987; Kimberlain self-defense, a continuance should be granted for the absence of the only v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 235, 82 SW 1043; Pettis v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 66, 81 9 SW 836, 10 KyL 656; Hatfield v. Com., 55 SW 679, 21 KyL 1461; Howard v. Com., 26 SW 1. 15 KyL 873; Nelson v. Com., 23 SW 350. 15 KyI 255; Simmons v. Com., 18 SW 534, 13 KyL 839; Smith v. Com., 17 SW 868, 74 conflict with the state's theory of the guilt of accused, and where the continuance is asked for the second time.75 This is not, however, an absolute criterion by which the court should be governed, and where the evidence is important and material it may in some instances be error to refuse a continuance, notwithstanding the fact that it is cumulative.76 Thus, when the direct evidence of a transaction under investigation is in conflict, the issue is often determined by the number of witnesses, and in such a case the objection that the evidence is cumulative probably ought not to prevail.77 First application. In some jurisdictions the rule against cumulative evidence does not apply to the first application of accused for a continuance, espe 13 KyL 612; Trabune v. Com., 17 SW | La.-State v. Wooten, 136 La. 560, 67 S 366; State v. Buhler, 132 La. 1065, 62 S 145; State v. Reeves, 129 La. 714, 56 S 648; State v. Primeaux, 39 La. Ann. 673, 2 S 423. Miss.-Trim v. State, 33 S 718; Wells v. State, 18 S 117 Mo.-State v. Peters, 258 Mo. 334, 167 SW 520; State v. Olds, 217 Mo. 305, 116 SW 1080; State v. Sassaman, 214 Mo. 695, 114 SW 590; State v. Horn, 209 Mo. 452, 108 SW 3; State v. Crane, 202 Mo. 54, 100 SW 422; State v. Riddle, 179 Mo. 287, 78 SW 606; State v. Tettaton, 159 Mo. 354, 60 SW 743; Poplar Bluff v. Meadows, 187 Mo. A. 450, 173 SW 11. Nebr.-Blair v. State, 72 Nebr. 501, 101 NW 17. N. Y.-Peo. v. High Ground Dairy Co., 166 App. Div. 81, 151 NYS 710; Eighmy v. Peo., 79 N. Y. 546. Okl.-Petty v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 438, 147 P 783; Seigler v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 131, 145 P 308; Jones v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 576, 129 P 446; Rose v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 294, 127 P 873; Litchfield v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 164, 126 P 707, 145 LRANS 153; Bethel v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 61, 126 P 698. Pa.-Com. v. Pennington, 249 Pa. 536, 95 A 107. S. D.-State v. .Sonnenschein, 37 S. D. 139, 156 NW 906. Tenn.-State v. Robinson, 106 Tenn. 204, 61 SW 65. Tex.-Edwards v. State, (Cr.) 191 SW 542; Wood v. State, (Cr.) 189 SW 474; Reed v. State, (Cr.) 183 SW 1168; Chamberlain v. State, (Cr.) 183 SW 438; Walton v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 413, 178 SW 358; Millner v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 22, 169 SW 899; Whitfill v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 1, 169 SW 681; Hamilton v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 29, 168 SW 536; Lane v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. 266, 164 SW 378; Manley v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 502, 154 SW 1008; Bosley v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 100, 153 SW 878; Pace v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 27, 153 SW 132; Boswell v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 561, 150 SW 432; Loggins v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 438, 149 SW 170: Burton v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 149, 148 SW 805; Dowd v. State. 66 Tex. Cr. 580, 148 SW 304; O'Neal v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 460, 146 SW 938: Crawford v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 433, 147 SW 229; Hogue v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 539, 146 SW 905; Jordan v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 143, 143 SW 623: Sandoloski v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 33. 143 SW 151: Dozier v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 258. 137 SW 679; Florence v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. 238, 134 SW 689; Bacon v. State, 61 Tex. Cr. 206, 134 SW 690: White v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 559. 132 SW 790: Pork v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 462. 132 SW 134; Francis v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 555, 123 SW 1111; Fulkerson v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 80, 121 SW 1111; Mumphreys v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 19, 121 SW 504; Dobbs v. 78 cially where defendant himself is practically the [d] Character and reputation.-A refusal to grant a continuance in a criminal prosecution to secure the attendance of witnesses who would produce cumulative testimony as to character and reputation is proper. Hamer v. State, 104 Ark. 606, 150 SW 142; Maxey v. State, 66 Ark. 523, 52 SW 2; Salmons v. State, 118 Ga. 763, 45 SE 611; State v. Wimer, 97 Kan. 353, 155 P 7; Mullins v. Com., 79 SW 258, 25 KyL 2044; State v. Olds, 217 Mo. 305, 116 SW 1080. 74. Bryant v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 47 SW 373; Pruitt v. State, 30 Tex. A. 156, 16 SW 773. 75. Rose v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 186 SW 202; Brittain v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 40 SW 297. See infra § 891. [§ 839] bb. Facts Provable by Other Witness or Evidence. It is well established that the courts will not consider it an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance on the ground of absence of witnesses, where it appears that the facts sought to be proved by them could be proved by other witnesses present,82 or whose presence probably could State, 54 Tex. Cr. 579, 113 SW 921; | SW 549; State v. Hasty, 121 Iowa Buckner v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 511, 507, 96 NW 1115. 117 SW 802; Burnett v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 515, 112 SW 74; Cravens v. State, (Cr.) 103 SW 921; Washington V. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 542, 103 SW 879; White v. State, (Cr.) 98 SW 264; Taylor v. State, (Cr.) 87 SW 1039; Ricks v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 264, 87 SW 1036; Ray v. State, (Cr.) 85 SW 1151; Roach V. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 500, 84 SW 586; Laudermilk v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 427, 83 SW 1107; Brown v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 326, 83 SW 378; Bearden v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 271, 83 SW 808; Baker v. State, (Cr.) 81 SW 1215; Williams v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 218, 75 SW 859; McLeod v. State, (Cr.) 75 SW 522; Lively v. State, (Cr.) 73 SW 1048; Wilson v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 61, 73 SW 964; Godwin v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 599, 73 SW 804, Bearden v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 578, 73 SW 17; Kelly v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 390, 71 SW 756; Grimsinger v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 1, 69 SW 583; Parker v. State, (Cr.) 65 SW 1066; Adkins v. State, 65 SW 924; Martin v. State, (Cr.) 61 SW 486; Gann v. State, (Cr.) 59 SW 896; Hamilton v. State, (Cr.) 58 SW 93; Wilkerson v. State, (Cr.) 57 SW 956; Speights v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 323, 54 SW 595; Shackleford v. State, (Cr.) 53 SW 884; Bryant v. State, (Cr.) 47 SW 373; Gaines v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. 202, 42 SW 385; Henderson v. State, (Cr.) 39 SW 116; Bonners v. State, (Cr.) 35 SW 650; Evans v. State, (Cr.) 31 SW 648; Easterwood v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 400, 31 SW 294; Steel v. State, (Cr.) 30 SW 1064: Gonzales v. State, 30 Tex. A. 203, 16 SW 978; Frizzell v. State, 30 Tex. A. 42, 16 SW 751; Roberts v. State, (A.) 16 SW 255; Kilgore v. State, (A.) 11 SW 830; Peace v. State, 27 Tex. A. 83, 10 SW 761; Parker v. State, 24 Tex. A. 61, 5 SW 653; Tucker v. State, 23 Tex. A. 512, 5 SW 180; Brown v. State, 23 Tex. A. 214, 4 SW 588; Graves v. State, 9 Tex. A. 559. Wash.-State v. Rackich, 66 Wash. Wyo.-McKinney v. State, 3 Wyo. [a] Where an eyewitness to a crime testifies, it has been held not error to deny an application for continuance to procure the testimony of another eyewitness. Maddox v. State, 69 Fla. 695, 69 S 20. [b] Admitted facts.--The refusal to grant a continuance for absence of a witness who would testify to things already admitted by the state was not error. Pace v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 27, 153 SW 132. [c] Contradiction of prosecuting witness. It is within the court's discretion to refuse to suspend trial to enable accused to procure another witness to contradict prosecuting witness where accused had produced several other witnesses to testify to the same contradictory statements. Benson v. State, 112 Ark. 442, 166 76. Ga.-Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. A. 53, 68 SE 515. Iowa-State v. Hasty, 121 Iowa 507, 96 NW 1115. Ky.-Thompson v. Com., 13 KyL 399. S. D.-State v. Phillips, 18 S. D. 1, 98 NW 171, 5 AnnCas 760. Tex.-Morgan v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 542, 113 SW 934; Ninnon v. State, 17 Tex. A. 650; Harris v. State, 15 Tex. A. 411; McDow v. State, 10 Tex. A. 98. [a] Identity.-Where the testimony related to a question of identity, it was not proper to confine defendant to the testimony of two or three witnesses. Thompson v. Com., 13 KyL 399. 77. Corbin v. Peo., 131 Ill. 615, 23 NE 613; State v. Hasty, 121 Iowa 507, 96 NW 1115. Cumulative evidence of alibi see supra § 833. 78. Marta v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 193 SW 323; Hall v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 185 SW 574; Clayton v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 158, 180 SW 1089; Chapman v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 591, 179 SW 570; Wade v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 572, 172 SW 215; Poulter v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 140, 161 SW 475; Sharp v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 633, 160 SW 369; Robinson v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 561, 160 SW 456; Knowles v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 600, 150 SW 777; Wells v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 663, 145 SW 950; Wilman v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 623, 141 SW 110; Riley v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 176, 125 SW 582; Johnson v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 134, 114 SW 1178; Hardin v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 238, 106 SW 352; Robbins v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 312, 83 SW 690, 122 AmSR 694; Gilford v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 78 SW 692; Davis v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 65 SW 918; Porter v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 32 SW 692; Hyden v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 401, 20 SW 764; Burnly v State, (Tex. A.) 14 SW 1008; Thompson v. State, 25 Tex. A. 161, 7 SW 589. 79. Hardin v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 238, 106 SW 352. 80. Loggins v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 438, 149 SW 170. 81. Chapman v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 591. 179 SW 570; Blackburn v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 286, 87 SW 692, 122 AmSR 743. 82. Ark.-Pratt v. State, 75 Ark It have been secured.83 The same is true where such is largely controlled by the materiality of the tes- 89 [§ 840] cc. Corroborative Testimony. The rule that a continuance will not be granted for the pur 350, 87 SW 651. 61. Cal.-Peo. V. Ah Fat, 48 Cal. Ga.-Jones v. State, 125 Ga. 307, 54 SE 122; Salmons v. State, 118 Ga. 763, 45 SE 611; Wiggins v. State, 84 Ga. 488, 10 SE 1089; Fogarty v. State, 80 Ga. 450, 5 SE 782; Griffin v. State, 26 Ga. 493; Wooten v. State, 17 Ga. A. 333, 86 SE 740; Howard v. State, 7 Ga. A. 61, 65 SE 1076. Kan.-State v. Truskett, 85 Kan. 804, 118 P 1047. Ky.-Rone v. Com., 70 SW 1042, 24 KyL 1174; Kennedy v. Com., 78 Ky. 447. La-State v. Scott, Mann. Unrep. Cas. 391. Miss.-Helm v. State, 67 Miss. 562, 7 S 487. Mo.-State v. Olds, 217 Mo. 305, 116 SW 1080; State v. Good, 132 Mo. 114, 33 SW 790; State v. Hays, 24 Mo. 369. Nev.-State v. Nelson, 36 Nev. 403, 136 P 377. N. M.-State V. Chavez, 19 N. M. 325, 142 P 922, AnnCas1917B 127. Okl.-Hyde v. Terr., 8 Okl. 69, 56 P 851. Or. State v. Hawkins, 18 Or. 476, 23 P 475. Tex-Wood v. State, (Cr.) 189 SW 474; Baker v. State, (Cr.) 187 SW 949; Ellis v. State, (Cr.) 185 SW 997; Grimes v. State, (Cr.) 178 SW 523; Oliver v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 140, 159 SW 235; Boswell v. State, (Cr.)_150 SW 432; Crawford v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 433, 147 SW 229; Wade v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 125, 144 SW 246; Lahue v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 159, 101 SW 1008; Caddell v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 380, 97 SW 705; Laudermilk v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 427, 83 SW 1107; Bearden v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 271, 83 SW 808; Connell v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 142, 75 SW 512; Barkham v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 105, 52 SW 73; Shaw v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 161, 45 SW 597; Sisk v. State, (Cr.) 42 SW 985; McIver v. State, (Cr.) 37 SW 745; Blain v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 448, 31 SW 368; Easterwood v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 400, 31 SW 294; Thompson v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 217, 26 SW 198; Scott v. State, (Cr.) 25 SW 783; Jackson v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 552, 21 SW 367; Higginbotham State, (Cr.) 20 SW 360. v. Nebr-Kerr v. State, 63 Nebr. 115, 88 NW 240. N. C.-State v. Daniels, 164 N. C. 464, 79 SE 953. Or-State v. Fiester, 32 Or. 254, 50 P 561. Tex.-Laudermilk v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 427, 83 SW 1107; Hardin v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 208, 49 SW 607; Johnson v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 456. 20 SW 985; Fisher V. State, 4 Tex. A. 181. pose of procuring cumulative evidence does not apply to the procurement of evidence merely corroborative of defendant's testimony, as such evidence is clearly material, and its absence is likely to work an injury to his rights.90 Utah. Peo. v. Garns, 2 Utah 260. [ 841] dd. Impeaching Testimony. Where due diligence has been shown to procure the attendance of impeaching witnesses, and the evidence sought to be impeached by them is material, a refusal to grant a continuance to procure their attendance is error;91 but generally speaking, evidence for which a continuance will be granted must directly touch the issue of guilt or innocence of accused; and a continuance will not be granted ordinarily merely to secure the attendance of impeaching witnesses;92 avoidably absent is material, it is not within the power of the court to say that the defendant has sufficient testimony upon that point because he has other witnesses present who will testify to the same fact as the absent witness. The credibility of a witness being for the jury, the court can not select a party's witness for him. The jury might disregard as wholly unreliable the testimony of the witnesses who are present, and yet might pin their faith to every word uttered by the absent witness. Either his manner upon the stand, his opportunity for knowing the facts, the probability of his statement, or its very apparent sincerity, might carry conviction to the minds of the jury, while the interest or manner or bad character of other witnesses who testify to the same facts might cause the jury to eliminate their testimony from the case as wholly unworthy of credit." Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. A. 53, 57, 68 SE 515. 84. Scott v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 568, 85 SW 1060, 122 AmSR 717. [a] The fact that all eyewitnesses to the commission of the crime are absent does not necessarily require a continuance of the case. Scott v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 568, 85 SW 1060, 122 AmSR 717. 85. State v. Pell, 140 Iowa 655, 119 NW 154; Bowling v. Com., 148 Ky. 9, 145 SW 1126; Richburger v. State, 90 Miss. 806, 44 S 772. 86. Com. v. Pennington, 249 Pa. 536, 95 A 107. [a] Testimony given on former trial.-Reed v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 183 SW 1168. 87. Bowling v. Com., 148 Ky. 9, 145 SW 1126. 88. Little v. State, 121 Ga. 159, 48 SE 904; Britt v. State, 13 Ga. A. 698, 79 SE 859; Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. A. 53, 68 SE 515; Carter v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 403, 35 SW 378; Clark v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 33 SW 224. [b] The absent witness might be believed, while the witnesses present might be discredited, by the jury. Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. A. 53, 68 SE 515. 89. Britt v. State, 13 Ga. A. 698, 79 SE 859. [a] If the fact which it is sought to prove by the absent witness is only collaterally involved, the discretion of the court in overruling the motion is broader than where the testimony proposed to be elicited from the absent witness goes to the very vitals of the case. Britt v. State, 13 Ga. A. 698, 79 SE 859. 90. Peo. v. Ah Lee Doon, 97 Cal. 171, 31 P 933; Ransbottom v. State, 144 Ind. 250, 43 NE 218; Hendrickson v. Com., 73 SW 764, 24 KyL 2173; Holt v. Com., 13 SW 71, 11 KyL 773; Mansell v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 182 SW "Now, the rule of law is this: that upon a second application for a continuance the party must swear that he cannot prove the facts sought by any other witness. We have relaxed that rule. If the defendant is the only witness swearing to the fact, we will not strictly enforce the rule, because it would be a very remarkable case in which a jury would believe a man accused of such a crime as this as readily as they would disinterested witnesses. If the defendant alone testifies to the fact, we will treat the case as if no witness had testi-1138; Taylor v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 164 fied, so far as giving him the right of additional testimony. The affidavits of the witnesses corroborate the defendant in every material particu- | lar. We are of opinion the court erred in not granting defendant a new trial upon these grounds. The diligence was perfect." Givens V. State, (Tex. Cr.) 21 SW 44, 45. SW 844; Rushing v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 309, 137 SW 372; Beard v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 154, 115 SW 592, 131 AmSR 806; Blackburn v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 286, 87 SW 692, 122 AmSR 743; Gathright v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 85 SW 1076; Tyler v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 10, 79 SW 558; Knowles v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 74 SW 767; Fossett v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 400, 55 SW 497; Phipps v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 560, 31 SW 397; Givens v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 21 SW 44; Burnly v. State, (Tex. A.) 14 SW 1008; Maines v. State, 26 Tex. A. 14, 9 SW 51. 91. Fox v. State, 9 Ga. 373; Studstill v. State, 7 Ga. 2 (holding, however, that if the witness whose testimeny it was intended to impeach was not sworn in the trial, the error was immaterial); Settle v. Com., 136 Ky. 440, 124 SW 393; Anderson v. State, (Miss.) 50 S 554; Marsden v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 70. 111 SW 945; Foster v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. 137. 105 SW 498; Manuel v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 542, 89 SW 645. [a] Reasons for rule.—(1) "In such 92. U. S.-Latham v. U. S., 210 Fed. 159. 127 CCA 9. Ala.-Eatman v. State, 139 Ala. 67, 36 S 16. Alaska.-U. S. v. Bird, 1 Alaska or and especially is this true where it is not certain that the witness sought to be impeached will testify at the trial,93 or that his evidence would be admissible if he were present;94 where it appears that he did not testify;95 where such witness was already rather cogently impeached; where the state's case did not rest upon the testimony of such witness alone;97 where there were other persons present or accessible who could give similar testimony; where the proper foundation had not been laid for impeachment.99 It has been so held even where the witnesses sought to be impeached are strangers in the neighborhood, employed and paid to aid in securing a conviction,1 although the contrary has also been held.2 Statements of persons made subsequent to a given transaction that is under investigation, where such statements might be contradictory of their testimony upon the witness stand, are merely impeaching testimony, and defendant under such Cal.-Peo. v. Chutnacut, 141 Cal. | v 682; 75 P 340. Fla.-Stone v. State, 57 Fla. 28, 48 S 996. Ky.-Hays v. Com., 140 Ky. 184, 130 SW 987; Sizemore v. Com., 108 SW 254, 32 KyL 1154; Mullins v. Com., 79 SW 258, 25 KyL 2044; Earp v. Com., 9 Dana 301; Scott v. Com., 13 Ky. Op. 763. Mo.-State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112, 97 SW 574; State v. Hilsabeck, 132 Mo. 348, 34 SW 38; State v. Howell, 117 Mo. 307, 23 SW 263. See State v. Peters, 258 Mo. 334, 167 SW 520 (holding that since, under Rev. St. [1909] § 6383, proof that a witness has been convicted of former crimes may be made either by cross-examing the witness, or by the record of the conviction, defendant was not entitled to a postponement in order to obtain proof of a witness' prior conviction, where no attempt was made to prove the fact by cross-examination). Tex.-Ellis v. State, (Cr.) 185 SW 997; Galvan v. State, (Cr.) 179 SW 875; McCuen v. State, (Cr.) 170 SW 738; Raleigh v. State, (Cr.) 168 SW 1050; Dukes v. State, (Cr.) 168 SW 96; Miller v. State, (Cr.) 161 SW 128; Brown v. State, (Cr.) 160 SW 374; Claussen v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 607, 157 SW 477; Giles v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 550, 157 SW 943; Cole v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 459, 156 SW 929; Click v State, (Cr.) 155 SW 270; Caples v. State, (Cr.) 155 SW 267; Pierce v. State, (Cr.) 154 SW 559; Fletcher v. State, (Cr.) 153 SW 1134; Loggins v. State, (Cr.) 149 SW 170; Lawson v. State, (Cr.) 148 SW 587; King v. State. (Cr.) 148 SW 324; Vanderberg v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 583, 148 SW 315; Robinson v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 138, 145 SW 345; Wragg v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 131, 145 SW 342; Wade v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 125, 144 SW 246; Fifer v. State, 64 Tex. Cr. 203, 141 SW 989; Melton V. State. 63 Tex. Cr. 573, 140 SW 781; Melton v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 362. 149 SW 230; Vela v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 361, 137 SW 120; Rushing v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 309, 137 SW 372; Dozier v. State, '62 Tex. Cr. 258, 137 SW 679; Bussey v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 260, 127 SW 1035; Trinkle v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 257, 127 SW 1060; Wynne v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 126, 127 SW 213; Gipson v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 403, 126 SW 267; Patton v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 231, 125 SW 24: Gee v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 151, 122 SW 23; Mumphreys v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 19. 121 SW 504; Elsworth v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 38, 111 SW 963; Early v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 382, 103 SW 868, 123 AmSR 889; Benson V. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 367, 103 SW 911; Corpus v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 315, 102 SW 1152; White v. State, (Cr.) 98 SW 264; Powell v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 473. 93 SW 544: Rector V. State, (Cr.) 90 SW 41: Roach circumstances is not entitled to a continuance to procure such testimony;3 but evidence of statements of parties antedating a given transaction, showing motive, feeling, prejudice, and unfriendliness toward a party who is accused of an offense, is admissible as original testimony, and entitles defendant to a continuance. It has been held error to deny a first application for continuance because of the absence of two witnesses for accused, duly subpoenaed, whose testimony, while impeaching in character, would also tend to corroborate defendant's version of the difficulty.5 6 [§ 842] (e) Credibility and Probable Effect of Expected Evidence-aa. In General. While it is not for the court to usurp the province of the jury by passing upon the credibility of witnesses, yet where it appears improbable that a witness will swear to the facts stated in the application for a continuance, or where he makes affidavit that he will not State, 47 Tex. Cr. 500, 84 | 124, 131 SW 221; Tull v. State, (Tex. SW 586; Marmer v. State, 47 Tex. Cr.) 55 SW 61. Cr. 424, 84 SW 830; Thompson V. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 397, 77 SW 449; Kipper v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 377, 77 SW 611; Gaines V. State, (Cr.) 77 SW 10; Cogdell v. State, (Cr.) 74 SW 311; Kelly v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 390, 71 SW 756; Barber V. State, (Cr.) 69 SW 515; Scott v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 610, 68 SW 171; Hopkins v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 261, 64 SW 933; Tippett v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 609, 63 SW 883; Hamilton V. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 599, 58 SW 93; Webb V. State, (Cr.) 58 SW 82; Martin v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 242, 53 SW 849; Shaw v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 161, 45 SW 597; Gerstenkorn v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. 621, 44 SW 503; Garrett V. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 198, 38 SW 1017, 39 SW 108; Butts v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. 364, 33 SW 866. Va.-Myers v. Com., 90 Va. 705, 19 SE 881. Eng.-Reg. V. Gordan, C. & M. 410. 41 ECL 225. 93. State v. Spillman, 43 La. Ann. 1001, 10 S 198; Lundy v. State, 44 Miss. 669; Taylor v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 42 SW 285; Garrett v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 198, 38 SW 1017, 39 SW 108. 94. State v. Brown, (Iowa) 121 NW 513; State v. Hayden, 131 Iowa 1, 107 NW 929. 95. Studstill v. State, 7 Ga. 2: State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112, 97 SW 574; Gaut v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 493, 94 SW 1034; Hamilton v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 599, 58 SW 93; Taylor v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 42 SW 285. 96. State V. Sassaman, 214 Mo. 695, 114 SW 590; Mumphreys V. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 19, 121 SW 504. 97. Eatman v. State. 139 Ala., 67, 36 S 16; Smith v. State, 13 Ga. A. 32, 78 SE 685; Taylor v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 42 SW 285. 98. Salmons v. State, 118 Ga. 763, 45 SE 611; State v. Sassaman, 214 Mo. 695, 114 SW 590. 99. Harper v. State, 79 Ark. 594, 96 SW 1003; State v. Peters, 258 Mo. 334, 167 SW 520; State v. Devorss, 221 Mo. 469, 120 SW 75; Westerman v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 109, 111 SW 655; Gaut v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 493, 94 SW 1034. 1. Marmer v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 424, 84 SW 830. 2. State V. Mines, 137 La. 489, 68 S 837 (holding that, in view of the facts recited in the bill of exception, namely, that the sole witnesses relied on to convict defendant were strangers in the community, and persons of whom defendant had never heard until the day of the trial, when it was shown that they were employed to convict, and were to be paid only in the event of conviction, the continuance prayed for should have been granted). 3. Cockrell v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. [a] But, upon a trial for rape, where the age of the prosecutrix is in dispute, testimony that she had called the attention of a witness to the record of her birth in the family Bible which showed her to be over fifteen years of age, and that the mother of the prosecutrix representcd her to have been born on a day named, which would make her over fifteen years of age, is original and not impeaching testimony. Tull v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 55 SW 61. 4. Cockrell v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 124, 131 SW 221. 5. Rushing v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 309, 137 SW 372. 6. Miller v. State, 94 Ark. 538, 128 SW 353; McCarty v. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 407, 136 P 1122; Thomas v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 189 SW 139; Reed v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 183 SW 1168; Wood v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 182 SW 1122: Jordan v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 182 SW 890; Stoner v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 482, 162 SW 836; Dugat v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 160 SW 376: Brown v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 160 SW 374; McKelvey v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 155 SW 932; Meadows v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 154 SW 546; Ragland v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 153 SW 1137: Hart v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 150 SW 188; Giles v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 638, 148 SW 317: Bost v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 464. 144 SW 589; Griffith v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 642, 138 SW 1016; Mays v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 651, 127 SW 546; Singleton v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 560, 124 SW 92; Smith v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 628, 118 SW 145; Steel v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 551, 117 SW 850; Reyna v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 75 SW 25; Dodd v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 480, 72 SW 1015: Burns v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 51 SW 905; Lamar v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 39 SW 677; McGriff v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 38 SW 789; Reed v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 38 SW 613; Gregory v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 37 SW 752. See also Thurman v. Com., 142 Ky. 347, 134 SW 174 (holding that, where all the witnesses who were present at the killing appeared and testified, and there was nothing justifying the pretense that any other persons knew any thing about the facts of the case, the refusal to grant a continuance on the ground of the absence of witnesses was not erroneous). [a] Incriminating testimony.-One is not entitled to a continuance because of the absence of witnesses. where the statement is that they would testify that they, and not defendant, committed the crime, as they could not be forced to give testimony incriminating themselves, and it is merely speculative as to whether they would so testify. Griffith v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 642, 138 SW 1016. so testify, refusal of a continuance is not error. So where, in view of the record in the case, the overwhelming evidence, or the uncontroverted facts,10 it is altogether probable that such testimony, if presented, would be untrue,11 a continuance should be refused. But where an affidavit of an absent witness shows absolutely that he would testify to the facts set up in the application, it will not be assumed that such evidence probably is untrue even though the testimony at the trial is strongly indicative thereof.12 Nor is the fact that the witness is unreliable,13 or that the state would produce witnesses who would contradict his testimony,14 sufficient reason for refusing a continuance. The falsity of such testimony must, however, appear clearly probable,1 and the court will grant a new trial upon the ground of the absence of witnesses with greater liberality where the evidence in the case is all presumptive than where the guilt of accused is more manifest.16 15 7. Jordan v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 182 | State, 59 Tex. Cr. SW 890. And see infra § 843. 8. Tune v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. 445, 94 SW 231; Scott v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 568, 85 SW 1060, 122 AmSR 717; Chapman v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 85 SW 13; Dodson V. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 574, 70 SW 514; Gatling v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 76 SW 471; Roberts V. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 267, 70 SW 423; Corley v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 65 SW 1073; Combs v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 49 SW 585; Martinez v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 57 SW 829; Taylor v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 56 SW 753; Shaw v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 155, 22 SW 588. 9. State v. Pirkey, 22 S. D. 550, 118 NW 1042, 18 AnnCas 192; McKelvey v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 155 SW 932; Pierce v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 154 SW 559; Meadows v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 154 SW 546; Singleton v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 560, 124 SW 92; Steel v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 551, 117 SW 850: Davis v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 102 SW 1150; Williams v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 352, 102 SW 1147; Ricks v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 264, 87 SW 1036; Johnson v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 332, 71 SW 25; Chavarria V. State, (Tex. Cr.) 63 SW 312; Shaw v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 161, 45 SW 597; Henry v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. 306, 42 SW 559; Piles v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 32 SW 529. Probable use of testimony. Where an absent witness' testimony on a former hearing was such that accused probably would not have introduced him had he been present, and it was not suggested that he would testify differently, it was not error to refuse a continuance because of his absence.17 26 SW 75; Laurence v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 601, 21 SW 766; McKinney v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 583, 21 SW 683; Griffin v. State, (Cr.) 20 SW 552; Withers v. State, 30 Tex. A. 383, 17 SW 936; Massie v. State, 30 Tex. A. 64, 16 SW 770; Ulrich v. State, 30 Tex. A. 61, 16 SW 769; Hooper v. State, 29 Tex. A. 614, 16 SW 655; McCoy v. State, 27 Tex. A. 415, 11 SW 454; McCormick v. State, 26 Tex. A. 678, 9 SW 277; Peterson v. State, 25 Tex. A. 70, 7 SW 530; Collins v. State, 24 Tex. A. 141, 5 SW 848; Doss v. State, 21 Tex. A. 505, 2 SW 814, 57 AmR 618; Harvey v. State, 21 Tex. A. 178, 17 SW 158; Fleming v. State, (A.) 15 SW 173; Kilgore v. State, (A.) 11 SW 830; Riden v. State, (A.) 5 SW 829; Lillard v. State, 17 Tex. A. 114; Chandler v. State, 15 Tex. A. 587; Lyons v. State, 9 Tex. A. 636. [§ 843] bb. Contradictory Testimony 18—(aa) Of Witness' Previous Statements. It is not error to refuse to grant a continuance to secure an absent witness where the material facts to which it is claimed he will testify are contradictory to such witness' previous affidavits; 19 where such material facts would be contradictory of the witness' previous testimony as given on a preliminary examination,20 or on a former trial;21 where affidavits of such witnesses, procured and filed by the state, directly contradict the alleged facts to which it is claimed the witness will swear,22 or show that he would not testify as expected;23 or where affidavits are presented 595, 129 SW 353; | Tex. Cr. 372, 23 SW 797; Bluman v. Hinman v. State, 59 Tex. Cr. 29, 127 | State, 33 Tex. Cr. 43, 21 SW 1027, SW 221; Mays v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. 651, 127 SW 546; Singleton v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 560, 124 SW 92; Myers v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. 222, 118 SW 1032; Hill v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 407, 117 SW 823; Roma v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 344, 116 SW 598; Lamb v. State, 55 Tex. Cr. 323, 116 SW 588; Robinson v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 565, 110 SW 908; Price v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 428, 111 SW 654; Searles v. State, (Cr.) 105 SW 191; Davis v. State, (Cr.) 102 SW 1150; Baird v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 322, 101 SW 991; Andrews V. State, (Cr.) 100 SW 922; Purdy v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 318, 97 SW 480; Woodward v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 294, 97 SW 499; McIntyre v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 83, 94 SW 1048; Doss v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 48, 95 SW 1040; Turner v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 585, 89 SW 975; Scott v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 568, 85 SW 1060, 122 AmSR 717; Kaylor v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 532, 85 SW 806; Chapman v. State, (Cr.) 85 SW 13; Kimberlain v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 235, 82 SW 1043; Franklin v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 181, 78 SW 934; Rush V. State, (Cr.) 76 SW 927; Ray V. State, (Cr.) 75 SW 798; Reyna v. State, (Cr.) 75 SW 25: Dodd v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 480, 72 SW 1015; Hays v. State, (Cr.) 72 SW 598; Bowers v. State, (Cr.) 71 SW 284; Ransom v. State, (Cr.) 70 SW 960; Ash v. State, (Cr.) 63 SW 881; Jackson v. State, (Cr.) 61 SW 404; Garcia v. State, (Cr.) 61 SW 122; Dailey v. State, (Cr.) 55 SW 821; Wilson v. State, (Cr.) 55 SW 489: Martin v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 242, 53 SW 849; Searcy v. State. 40 Tex. Cr. 460, 50 SW 699, 51 SW 1119, 53 SW 344; Isham V. State, (Cr.) 49 SW 594; Robinson V. State, (Cr.) 48 SW 176; Maloney v. State. (Cr.) 45 SW 718; Shaw v. State, 39 Tex. Cr. 161, 45 SW 597; Tanner v. State, (Cr.) 44 SW 489; Boggs v. State, (Cr.) 41 SW 642; Longacre v. State, (Cr.) 41 SW 629: Goodson v. State, (Cr.) 41 SW 604; Lamar v. State, (Cr.) 39 SW 677: Reed v. State, (Cr.) 38 SW 613; McGriff v. State, (Cr.) 38 SW 789; Gregory v. State, (Cr.) 37 SW 752; Melver v. State, (Cr.) 37 S. D-State v. Pirkey, 22 S. D. SW 745; Snodgrass v. State, 36 Tex. 550, 118 NW 1042, 18 AnnCas 192. Cr. 207, 36 SW 477; Hudson v. State, Tex-Watson v. State, (Cr.) 191 (Cr.) 36 SW 452; Johnson v. State, SW 546: Thomas V. State, (Cr.) (Cr.) 35 SW 387; Collins v. State, 189 SW 139; Reed v. State, (Cr.) (Cr.) 34 SW 949; Wilkins v. State, 183 SW 1168; Stacy v. State, (Cr.) 35 Tex. Cr. 535, 34 SW 627: Blair 177 SW 114; Dugat v. State, (Cr.) v. State, (Cr.) 33 SW 967; Tate v. 160 SW 376: McKelvey v. State, (Cr.) State, 35 Tex. Cr. 231, 33 SW 121; 155 SW 932; Pierce v. State, (Cr.) 154 SW 559; Meadows v. State, (Cr.) 154 SW 546; Hart v. State, (Cr.) 150 SW 188; Giles v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 638, 148 SW 317; Wade v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 125, 144 SW 246; Melton v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 573, 140 SW 781; Schmidt v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 491. 140 SW 1088; Parshall v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 177, 138 SW 759; Lane v. 10. State v. Woodward. 182 Mo. 391. 81 SW 857, 103 AmSR 646; Dowd v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 580, 148 SW 304; Kuykendall v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 254, 131 SW 1099; Woodward V. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 294, 97 SW 499; Baker v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 81 SW 1216; Wilson v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 72 SW 862; Landreth v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. 239, 70 SW 758; Areola v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 51, 48 SW 195. 11. Ark-Miller v. State, 94 Ark. 538, 128 SW 353; Hust v. State, 77 Ark. 146, 91 SW 8. Ky.-Fitzgerald V. Com.. 98 SW 319, 30 KyL 349; Haywood v. Com., 12 SW 131, 11 KyL 355. Mo.-State v. McWilliams, 267 Mo. 437, 184 SW 96; State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 237, 92 SW 869, 5 AnnCas 954. Nebr.-Hubbard v. State, 65 Nebr. 805, 91 NW 869. Okl.-Gentry v. State, 11 Okl. 355, 146 P 719. Whitaker v. State, (Cr.) 31 SW 518; [a] False document.-An application for a continuance to procure an instrument which, under the evidence, probably would not be genuine is properly overruled. Melton v. State, 63 Tex. Cr. 573, 140 SW 781. 12. Freeman v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 75 SW 505; Baines v State, 42 Tex. Cr. 510, 61 SW 119, 312. [a] Reason for rule.-"To so hold, it seems to us. would be not only to usurp the functions of the jury. but to announce in advance that the absent witness had committed perjury." Baines v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 510, 514. 61 SW 119. 312. 13. Wallace v. State, 46 Tex. Cr. 341. 81 SW 966. 14. Cravens v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 103 SW 921. 15. Ratliff v. State, 12 Tex. A. 330. 16. Worthy v. State, 44 Ga. 449. 17. Williams v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 565. 51 SW 224. of 18. Cross references: Contradiction and impeachment admission to avoid continuance see infra § 863 et seq. Right to contradict or discredit affidavit on hearing for continuance see infra § 931 et seq. 19. State v. White, 152 Mo. 159. 53 SW 895; O'Toole v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 578, 51 SW 244 (before grand jurv). 20. State v. Timberlake, 50 La. Ann. 308, 23 S 276. 21. Huling V. State, (Tex. Cr.) 80 SW 1006. 22. Reese V. State, 7 Ga. 373: State v. Hilsabeck. 132 Mo. 348, 34 SW 38; State v. Bishop, 98 N. C. 773, 4 SE 357; Wilkins v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. 525, 34 SW 627; Vaden v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 25 SW 777. 23. Gaines V. State, (Tex. Cr.) 77 SW 10; Rush v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 76 SW 927; Ransom v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 70 SW 960. |