Court Opinion

ID: 9674148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:53.585961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.813123
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Judge.
The state points out that the appellant did not object to the *198testimony of the witness Frank Vanecek as to the statement of the witness Joe Obregon made to him (Vanecek) in the presence of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was under arrest as stated in our original opinion. A re-examination .of the record reveals that the objections made to such testimony ■did not include as a basis therefor that the appellant was at such time under arrest. The opinion is incorrect in stating that such objection was among the objections to said statement.
The objections made to that portion of witness Vanecek’s testimony here in question were as follows: “We’ll object to that as being hearsay. The witness is present, it’s not the best evidence, and not a part of the res gestae.”
The original opinion clearly shows that the statement of Obregon to the witness Vanecek that the appellant killed the deceased “for nothing” as testified to by Vanecek is not founded upon any fact or facts within Obregon's knowledge.
The statement of Obregon, as testified to by Vanecek, under the facts and circumstances here presented, could rise no higher than hearsay testimony. It was injurious to the appellant and presents error. Ramos v. State, 141 Texas Cr. Rep. 126, 147 S.W. 2d 809.
We have again considered the record in the light of the state’s contention that the statement complained of was a part of the res gestae and have concluded that the facts herein do not bring the statement within such rule.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.