Court Opinion

ID: 9766650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:55:57.399795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:24.474680
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Judge.
Two additional grounds for reversal are relied upon in appellant’s motion for rehearing.
This information is claimed to be fundamentally erroneous because it alleges in a single count that appellant was engaged in the unlawful act of driving an automobile on the left side of the highway “when the same was not clear and unobstructed for a distance of at least fifty yards ahead, and when it was practicable for him to have driven and operated said automobile on the right side of said Highway 281, and while so unlawfully driving and operating said automobile upon the wrong side of Highway 281, he did then and there negligently and carelessly drive, operate and propel said automobile into and against the automobile that was being driven and operated by Agathe Sweet Pappa, * * *” and alleging that such impact caused the death of said Agathe Sweet Pappa.
Appellant’s contention is that the quoted allegations are “obviously repugnant,” and attempt to charge negligent homicide both in the performance of a lawful act and in the performance of an unlawful act.
We find no repugnance in the allegations which we understand allege the homicide to have been committed by negligence, the negligent act being the unlawful act of driving on the left side of the highway when it was not clear and unobstructed for at least fifty yards, which act is made unlawful by Art. 801 V.A.P.C.
The case of Taylor v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. Rep. 253, 233 S.W. 2d 853, cited by appellant, supports our holding that the information charges the offense of negligent homicide of the second degree for which offense punishment is fixed by Art. 1242 V.A.P.C.
The second error claimed relates to the italicized portion *198of the following testimony of the state’s witness, Highway Patrolman Preiss, on cross-examination :
“Q. Well, now, will you tell me what Mr. Pettigrew told you? A. He didn’t tell me anything direct as to what happened. When I was questioning him, the routine questions as to occupation and birth date on his license, address being correct, he voluntarily told me, 7 had one just a, month ago in Louisiana.’
“MR. BRUHL: Well, wait a minute. If the Court please, I asked this witness if he told him how this wreck happened.
“THE COURT: That’s right.
“MR. BRUHL: And he volunteered something that is an extraneous event and has nothing to do with this, and I ask not only that the Court sustain my objection to that, but instruct the jury not to consider that for any purpose.
“THE COURT: The objection will be sustained, and if the jury will, please, you will please disregard the statement the witness made.”
Counsel asked the witness what appellant told him, and the answer was in reply to that question. The remark did not show or suggest that appellant caused a wreck on a prior occasion or was guilty of any offense or of negligence in regard thereto, if in fact the remark related to a wreck.
In view of the question asked, the nature of the remark and the prompt action of the court, the complained of answer, if error, does not call for reversal of the conviction.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.