Court Opinion

ID: 9673999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:21:42.782466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.118359
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant insists that the two elements we held to be essentially necessary in order to authorize the presumption of injury, which he failed to allege or prove— that is, “that Barrera was not an Officer in charge of the jury” and “that the conversation was not had with the permission and in the presence of the Court,” were matters not only within the actual but also judicial knowledge of the trial court and therefore neither proof nor allegation of such facts was necessary. In other words, appellant insists that the trial court knew that Barrera was or was not an officer in charge of the jury and also knew whether the conversation was or was not in his *265presence or with his permission, hence neither proof nor allegation of such facts was necessary to be independently made.
To sustain appellant’s position would be to overrule the holding in Holder v. State, 140 Tex. Cr. R. 55, 143 S.W. 2d 613, and authorities there cited in support thereof. This we are unwilling to do.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.