Court Opinion

ID: 9825001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:53:12.785129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:27.190308
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
On application for rehearing our attention is called to the following portion of our original opinion: “There is another , reason why we would not be authorized to charge error here. When the witness. Wyatt was being examined by the State,, it was proven by him that the defendant told the witness that he (the defendant) stayed in Selma the night before in jail and this because he was drinking and had a fight.”
It is insisted that the witness Wyatt did not testify that the defendant told him that he had been drinking in Selma the night before. Appellant’s counsel is correct. What the witness Wyatt did, in fact, testify was that the defendant told him that he (the defendant) stayed in Selma the night before in jail because he had a fight.
There was much testimony with reference to the defendant’s experiences in Selma the night before the homicide in question. It was established without conflict that he was. drinking on this visit. In fact, the defendant himself testified without objection that he “drank a few bottles of beer the night before.”
*157The deep impression of the undisputed facts in this regard led us to make the inadvertent inclusion when we recited the testimony of the witness Wyatt.
We entertain the view, however, that this erroneous observation in no manner alters the conclusion that we reached that proof of the fact that the accused was drinking in Selma the night before was not harmful to the substantial rights of the appellant.
To respond to the other insistences made on application for rehearing would result in a reiteration of what we set out originally.
We adhere to the holdings in our original opinion.
Application for rehearing overruled.