Court Opinion

ID: 9665270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:43:52.917201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.346485
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant complains of our disposition of his Bill of Exception No. 1 and urges that the bill should be considered.
The defect in this bill is that it does not show that the witness, if permitted to answer, would have testified that the test showed a result favorable to appellant.
There is no showing in the bill that appellant made known to the court the expected answer, nor is it shown that appellant was denied the opportunity to examine the witness in the absence of the jury for the purpose of perfecting his bill.
We remain convinced that the bill fails to show reversible error.
Bill of Exception No. 3 has been re-examined in the light of appellant’s able brief and argument.
We are unable to agree that this bill should be construed as relating only to the exclusion of the testimony of the handwriting expert. The ruling of the court in excluding the testimony of the several witnesses on the question of identity appears also to be assigned as error in this bill. It is therefore multifarious and cannot be considered.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.