Court Opinion

ID: 9654250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:11:41.793646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:07.299093
License: Public Domain

*420on appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
It is urged that appellant was denied his constitutional rights in the admission of certain evidence offered by the state to which no objection was made at the trial, and it is pointed out that the trial judge at one time interrupted the state’s attorney and held certain answers of a witness to be inadmissible, though no objection had been made.
We must hold that no reversible error is shown by the admission of evidence to which there is no objection, appellant being represented by counsel of his own choosing at the trial.
As we view the matter, appellant is entitled to no relief from this court because there is sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict and no reversible error appears.
Some of the pleas presented on the motion for rehearing relate to fact issues which the jury has resolved against appellant, and others are of a nature appropriate for consideration by those charged with the responsibility of granting or refusing clemency.
The record suggests to us that the issue of insanity, temporary or permanent, might well have been raised. But neither appellant’s counsel at the trial or his counsel on this appeal agrees. The latter takes the position that appellant’s accusation that his wife had attempted to poison him was not an hallucination of appellant, but that the testimony as to such an accusation was conceived in the mind of appellant’s son, the state’s principal witness, Marvin Brinkley, and was either “his alcoholic hallucination” or a concocted “self protecting falsehood.”
If the suggested issue of insanity can hereafter be supported by testimony, and affidavits in compliance with Art. 922 V.A. C.C.P. can be obtained, insanity after conviction as a bar to punishment would yet be available. Arts. 921, et seq, V.A.C.C.P.; McCune v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 207, 240 S.W. 2d 305; Klinedinst v. State, 159 Texas Cr. Rep. 510, 265 S.W. 2d 593.
The record would not authorize this court to do other than agree with the position of his counsel that appellant was not insane at the time of the trial, and to agree with the finding of the jury as to his guilt and punishment.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.