Court Opinion

ID: 9773504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:47:52.286378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:54.527730
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
*243GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
In his motion for rehearing appellant reiterates his contention that the charge of the court quoted in the original opinion was not sufficiently liberal because of the fact that the condition of the highway at the time of the accident in question was the cause of his striking the deceased and causing the injuries which resulted in death.
We refer to these three different paragraphs set forth in the original opinion herein in which it was required that the causal connection between the intoxicated condition of the appellant and the collision should be firmly established in the minds of the jury before they could arrive at a verdict of guilt. We think the original opinion is perfectly clear in this matter. We also cited the cases of Long v. State, 154 Texas Cr. R. 587, 229 S.W. (2d) 366, and McKinnon v. State, 159 Cr. Rep. 65, 261 S.W. (2d) 335. In the McKinnon case, it was claimed that the accused had a defective vision and that the windshield of his automobile was blurred. The accused requested a charge to the effect that if the death of the deceased was caused by the defective vision of the defendant, he would not be guilty, etc. In that case the court said:
“The conditions presented by one or both of such charges as to appellant’s defective vision and the blurred windshield on his car, if found to be true, would not, in themselves, constitute an affirmative defense. If appellant was intoxicated and could have avoided the collision except for such intoxication, then the fact that his vision was defective or the windshield blurred would not constitute a defense though either or both may have caused the collision and resulting death.”
It is evident from the charges quoted in the original opinion that the court required of the jury to find the causal connection between the intoxication of the appellant and the injury to the deceased, and unless they found such, beyond a reasonable doubt in every instance, they were directed to acquit the appellant.
We think this case has been properly decided in the original opinion, and the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.