Langston v. State, 416 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
Langston v. State, 416 S.W.2d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Frangias v. State (texcrimapp, 2013-02-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frangias v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. Crim. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Sec Langston v. State, 416 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.1967) (trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny application to depose a State’s witness three days before trial was set to begin when trial counsel had had two months to prepare); Jasso v. State, 699 S.W.2d 658, 662-63 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1985, no pet.) (trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the defendant’s motion to depose the prosecutrix four days before trial for the express purpose of discovering "the nature of [her] testimony” where the motion was not timely and the record revealed that the defendant was n…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Frangias v. State
Tex. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
In Langston v. State, for example, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an application filed on the Friday before a Monday trial setting because the indictment had been pending for almost a year, the defendant’s attorney was appointed two months before trial, and the trial was passed on two prior occasions. 416 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.1967).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Aguilar, 468 S.W.2d at 78 ; Langston v. State, 416 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex.Crim.App.1967).
discussed Cited "see" Frangias v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Langston v. State, 416 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Aguilar v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Langston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 821 .
cited Cited "see" Harris v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Langston v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 821 .
Joe Wayne LANGSTON, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
40463.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jun 14, 1967.
416 S.W.2d 821
W. John Allison, Jr., Dallas, for appellant., Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John Emmett, Joe K. Hendley and Kerry P. FitzGerald, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Morrison.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

[*822] OPINION

MORRISON Judge.

The offense is murder with malice; the punishment, life in the Department of Corrections.

Appellant’s first ground of error is that there is a material variance between the name of the deceased as alleged in the indictment and the name of the deceased as shown by the proof offered by the State. The State’s witness, Charlie Ruth Bealer, testified that appellant struck on the head with a crowbar a person to whom she referred at different points in her testimony as Calvin Blair and Calvin Burns. She identified State’s exhibit No. 1 as being a photograph of such person. Dr. Earl Rose testified that he had performed an autopsy on a person who had been identified for him as “Calvin Thomas Blair.” When shown State’s exhibit No. 1, he testified that the picture was of “the body identified to me as Calvin Thomas Blair.” Appellant testifying in his own behalf stated that he had known Calvin Blair for 35 years and that he hit him in the head with a jack handle and remained in hiding for some months after he heard that the Calvin Blair whom he hit had died. The testimony is sufficient to prove that the person referred to by Charlie Ruth Bealer as both Calvin Burns and Calvin Blair is the same person who was known to appellant as Calvin Blair and upon whom the autopsy was performed and to whom the indictment refers as “Calvin Thomas Blair”; therefore, no variance is shown. Luttrell v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 102, 143 S.W. 628, upon which appellant relies has been distinguished by this Court in Bell v. State, 166 Tex.Cr.R. 340, 313 S.W.2d 606. See also Fletcher v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 74, 344 S.W.2d 683.

Appellant’s second ground of error relates to his application to take the deposition of State’s witness, Charlie Ruth Bealer. He contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying the application without holding a hearing to determine its merit. Appellant’s application was filed on Friday, August 5, 1966, three days before trial was set to begin on Monday, August 8, 1966. In view of the fact that the indictment had been pending for almost a year and appellant’s attorney had been appointed for two months before the trial, and that the record reflects that the cause was passed on two prior occasions, we cannot say the trial court abused his discretion by refusing to hold a hearing and by denying the application. See commentaries under Article 39.02, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.