Court Opinion

ID: 9765261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:57:31.675586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:07.410601
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
*625In our original opinion, we stated that the voluntary nature of the confession was not challenged. In this, we were in error. We have again reviewed the evidence and are of the opinion that the jury was warranted in finding against the appellant’s contention that the same was involuntary. We find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict.
We have again carefully reviewed appellant’s formal bills of exception Nos. 4 and 5 and informal bills Nos. 2, 3, and 5, inclusive, all directed to cross-examination of the accused concerning prior acts of misconduct.
The sole objection leveled at this cross-examination was that the matters there elicited were immaterial.
The generality of the objections were, upon their face, obvious, for they fail to point to any specific grounds whereby the testimony could be appropriated by the jury upon any material issue in the case or to appellant’s injury. The objections being insufficient, the bills of exception must be appraised in that light, and, when so appraised, no error is shown.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.