Ysasga v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Suit v. Ellis

    282 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1960)   Cited 4 times

    "The motion should have had the affidavit of the missing witness or a showing, under oath, from some other source that the witness would have actually testified to such facts." Other cases standing for this principal and for the requirement that a satisfactory showing be made that the missing witness will be present to testify at a reasonable future time are: Bradshaw v. State, Tex.Cr.App. 1959, 320 S.W.2d 833; Humphries v. State, 1956, 163 Tex.Crim. R., 295 S.W.2d 218; Massoletti v. State, 1957, 165 Tex.Crim. R., 303 S.W.2d 412; Ysasga v. State, 1956, 164 Tex.Crim. R., 297 S.W.2d 835; Outley v. State, 1955, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 284 S.W.2d 356; Davis v. State, 1955, 162 Tex.Crim. R., 280 S.W.2d 747; Gonzales v. State, 1955, 161 Tex.Crim. R., 278 S.W.2d 167; Belrose v. State, 1941, 156 Tex.Crim. R., 242 S.W.2d 378; Cockrell v. State, 1938, 135 Tex.Crim. 218, 117 S.W.2d 1105. As stated, the court below was called upon to test the action of the Texas trial court by the statute under which the motion was made, as construed by the Texas courts. If his motion for continuance was denied in line with the rules thus laid down, he can have no complaint that he was denied due process or equal protection of the laws, because he was afforded exactly the same protection of his rights which was granted to all other citizens of Texas. Applying these principles to the averments of petitioner's motion, we cannot say that the Texas trial judge failed faithfully to apply the law of Texas, nor that he abused his discretion in failing to grant the motion for continuance or for new trial.

  2. Fontenot v. State

    426 S.W.2d 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968)   Cited 9 times

    The motion in this respect is also deficient because it was not supported by the affidavits of witnesses who could testify to the newly discovered evidence. Kingham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 438; Chamberland v. State, 170 Tex.Crim. 124, 338 S.W.2d 726; Massoletti v. State, 165 Tex.Crim. 120, 303 S.W.2d 412; Ysasga v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 237, 297 S.W.2d 835; Morris v. State, 158 Tex.Crim. R., 251 S.W.2d 731; and Belrose v. State, 156 Tex.Crim. R., 242 S.W.2d 378. In his brief appellant refers to the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Harris.

  3. Young v. State

    164 Tex. Crim. 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1957)   Cited 1 times

    The room which he entered had but one outside entrance, but there was at least one other entrance to the building. The two $10 bills reached the property room at the Dallas [164 Tex.Crim. 237] Police Department and were in control of the custodian charged with the dity of keeping property belonging to prisoners, and property held as evidence, until they were delivered by the custodian to appellant who signed for the money. The informer having died before the trial, the State relied upon circumstantial evidence and the jury, under a charge so submitting the case, found appellant guilty.