Court Opinion

ID: 9676030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:12:45.018627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:42.882532
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Our attention is again called to appellant’s bill of exception No. 3, which complains that the witness was permitted to testify that, following the accident, a child (a passenger in an automobile with which the vehicle driven by the appellant had collided) was not expected to live.
In driving while intoxicated cases, the question of admissibility of evidence as to injuries sustained by the occupants of the automobile which was driven by the appellant, or occupants of the automobile with which he collided, has been before this Court only a few times. The cases seem to hold that where such evidence, even including the death of one of the occupants, is a part of the res gestae it is admissible under such rule. Stewart v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 199, 299 S. W. 646; Stevens v. State, 135 Tex. Cr. R. 335, 119 S. W. (2d) 1050; and Williams v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 454, 169 S. W. (2d) 172.
In Allen v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 612, 197 S. W. (2d) 1013, Judge Hawkins held admissible evidence that an occupant of one of the automobiles, which was involved in a collision as the result of appellant’s driving while intoxicated, sustained a broken leg, arms, ribs, and an injury to her neck. He questioned the admissibility of evidence as to details of the injuries and *560the resulting pain and suffering and probable continuation thereof.
From the files of this court, we have secured the bill of exception which was before this court when we wrote the opinion in the Allen case. There, we find testimony that the bones were sticking through in three or four places on her broken leg, and further testimony that the injured party at the time of the trial was still unable to hold a pen as the result of injury to the nerves in her right arm. It is clear, then, that we were expressing doubt as to the propriety of proof of such gory details because of the fear that the same would inflame the minds and arouse the prejudice of the jury.
Had the officer testified as to the details of the injuries, or the suffering and pain experienced by the child, then, clearly, this case would • have come within the rule expressed in the Allen case. Here, the question goes no further than to prove that injuries were sustained in the accident by the child, from which it was not expected to recover. The details thereof are not shown, and the rule expressed in the Allen case has not been violated. The record further affirmatively reveals that the child did not die, but was later released from the hospital and returned to its home.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.