# Hagans v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 24, 1962 · 372 S.W.2d 946

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766915

## Case

- **Full name:** Edward Otho HAGANS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 24, 1962
- **Citations:** 372 S.W.2d 946; 1962 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 790
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Woodley
- **Judges:** Belcher, Woodley, McDonald
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766915

## Opinion text

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
WOODLEY, Presiding Justice.
Appellant re-urges (his contention) that the failure of the court to change the venue should result in reversal. We are unable to agree with his contention that the trial court had no discretion in the matter under the evidence, or that the court’s action in overruling his motion for change of venue is shown by the record herein to constitute a denial of appellant’s rights under the Due Process clause of the Constitution of the United States. (14th Amendment)
In this regard it should be noted that appellant’s defense was insanity, and no prejudgment on such issue among the citizenry of the county was shown. Also there was testimony that a fair and impartial jury could be secured in the county and from the record before us, we are in no position to say this was not accomplished.
By brief and oral argument counsel for appellant contends that appellant’s wife was used as a witness against him in violation of Art. 714 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., in that her confession was introduced in evidence.
Appellant correctly contends that under said statute and our decisions the defendant could not waive the disqualification of his wife to testify against him as a witness for the state.
The rule has no application here because the state did not call appellant’s wife as a witness.
Assuming that appellant’s co-indictee, Elsie Marie Hagans, was appellant’s wife, she was a co-defendant jointly tried and her confession was admissible against her, and was admitted without objection.
The court in his charge instructed the jury “* * * you shall not consider the written statement, if any you find, of the defendant Elsie Marie Hagans, alias Elsie Marie Milner, against the defendant Edward Otho Hagans * *
We remain convinced that the appeal was properly disposed of on original submission.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9766915. Public record. Not legal advice.