
    NAVARRO v. STATE.
    (No. 7925.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 12, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1924.)
    1. Criminal law i&wkey;l092(6) — Evidence on motion for new trial filed' aftei; term not considered.
    Evidence heard on motion for new trial, filed after the adjournment of the term of the court, cannot be considered on appeal.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;939(3) — Denial of new trial for newly discovered evidence proper in view of lack of diligence.
    In prosecution for assault with intent to murder, in which the prosecuting witness claimed that the defendant was the aggressor, and fired several shots, and the defendant claimed that the- prosecuting witness was the aggressor, and that defendant merely fired one shot after prosecuting witness had made an attack with a knife, the denial of a motion for new trial on the ground that the defendant was surprised by testimony that prosecuting witness had been shot in the foot as well as -in the shoulder, and that subsequent to the trial he had discovered that the physician who attended witness would testify to only one wound, helé not error, since defendant, in the exercise of due diligence, could have discovered such testimony prior to the trial, the defendant and the prosecuting witness having been inmates of the same hospital, following the’ affray.
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar County; S. G. Tayloe, Judge.
    Eugene Navarro was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    T. B. Monroe, of San Antonio, for appellant.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., of Midland, and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty. of Devine, for the State.
   MORROW, P. J.

The offense is assault with intent to murder; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of ten years.

The subject of the alleged assault was Rosendo Zamudio, who, together with three other men, were the guests of one Rodriquez. The appellant and one Cortez became members of the party. While awaiting the coming of the new year they engaged in the use of strong drinks. They, afterwards left the home of Rodriquez, and while walking on the streets of the city of San Antonio an altercation took place. The appellant received .a knife wound and Zamudio a gunshot wound; according to his testimony, two such wounds. Zamudio testified that the appellant was the aggressor, and that he struck the appellant with a knife in an effort to repel the assault which the appellant was 'making with his pistol. Rodriquez and one Perez testified on behalf of the state to facts' corroborative of Zamudio and contradictory of appellant, touching the number of shots fired. They* fled, however, according to their testimony, when the firing began. According- to the appellant’s testimony, Za-mudio was the aggressor. Appellant drew-his pistol and fired áfter having .been attacked with a knife in the hands of Zamudio.

The record fails to reveal any exceptions to the charge of the court or to its rulings upon the admission and rejection of evidence or other matters of practice.

The only bill found in the record is that complaining of the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. Zamudio claimed upon the trial that two shots were fired, one of which took effect in his foot and the other in his shoulder. Appellant claimed that only, one shot-was fired at the time, and that there was no wound in the foot of Zamudio. It is' claimed in the motion for a neiw trial that bhe evidence of Zamudio to bhe effect that he had been wounded in the foot was a surprise. An affidavit attached to the motion Supports the theory that there was no gunshot wound upon the foot of Zamudio. -On the hearing of the motion witnesses were called, and testi-. fled that he had a gunshot wound in his foot. He also exhibited a shoe bearing evidence of a hole in the top of it which he claims was made by the pistol ball. Other witnesses were introduced supporting the testimony of Zamudio with reference to the wound in bhe foot. The evidence heard on the motion was filed after the adjournment of the term of court, and for that reason could not be considered. Black v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 53 S. W. 116; Salazar v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 209, 225 S. W. 528; Garrett v. State, 92 Tex. Cr. R. 338, 243 S. W. 986. If considered, however, it apparently would not have warranted a reversal of the judgment. Zamudio and the appellant were taken to a sanitarium after the affray, and occupied cots adjoining each other, separated only by a screen.

The fight occurred on the 1st of January, 1922. The. trial took place on the 1st of March, 1923. No sufficient reason is embraced in the motion for a new trial for the failure to know of the condition of the wound upon the foot of Zamudio, who was attended by nurses and doctors. If all that is said in the motion for a new trial were true, the evidence touching the beginning of the difficulty, that is, whether the appellant or his adversary was the aggressor, would remain in conflict.

The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. No errors appear. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, J.

Appellant bases his motion for rehearing on .the proposition that he was surprised at Zamudio’s testimony on the trial to the effect that several shots were fire by appellant, one of which struck him a glancing blow on the instep of one foot; that since the trial he has discovered that the physician who waited on Zamudio at the hospital would testify to only one wound, that being in the shoulder. From this appellant argues that it would be persuasive .that only one shot was fired' by appellant.

From an analysis of the evidence we cannot attach the same importance .to the question of whether Zamudio received a wound in the foot, as seems to be given it by appellant. There were present at the beginning of the difficulty Zamudio, Rodriquez, Saladana, Perez, Cortez, and appellant. All testified save Cortez, and his absence from bhe trial is not accounted for, although he appears to have been appellants friend, and at whose invitation appellant was in eom-pany with the other parties. All the witnesses save appellant testified that he was the aggressor, and that he fired several shots. Perez and Zamudio both said that one of the shots struct Zamudio in the foot. An interview with these witnesses, which presumably could have been obtained by the slightest diligence, would have revealed the fact that appellant was claimed to be the aggressor, and fired several shots, and this we deem the vital issue, and not whether one of the shots struct Zamudio in the foot, although the claim that it did would have have been revealed by interviewing Perez or Zamudio. Appellant tnew who was.present at the difficulty and who the witnesses were, and all the matters claimed to have been newly discovered appear to us to have been easily ascertainable. We cannot agree that appellant has brought himself within the rule authorizing a new trial for newly discovered evidence.

The motion for rehearing is overruled. 
      other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and indexes
     
      <gss>For oilier cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and indexes
     