Court Opinion

ID: 9770916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:25:16.590063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:21.976551
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant contends that his motion to suppress evidence as to the taking of a specimen of blood and the analysis thereof, which was incorporated in the statement of facts, clearly shows the matter about which complaint was being made and was sufficient as an objection.
If so, the fact remains that after the motion had been presented and the court had ruled, Dr. Bailey was called as a witness and testified to the taking of the specimen, and thereafter J. D. Chastain, chemist and toxicologist, testified to the analysis thereof, all without any objection being offered.
It has long been the rule that reversible error is not shown in the admission of evidence over proper objection where substantially the same testimony was admitted without objection. Many authorities to this effect are listed in Texas Digest under Criminal Law, Key No. 1169 (2) (a).
We remain convinced that the appeal was properly disposed of on original submission.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.