Court Opinion

ID: 9770886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:24:11.261114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:21.568355
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
WOODLEY, Judge.
It is contended that in our original opinion we failed to pass upon the contention that the trial court erred in not disposing of the question of appellant’s alleged insanity at the time of the trial in a separate trial prior to the trial on the charge contained in the indictment.
Upon the filing of an affidavit that a person accused of crime is presently insane, it is error for the trial court to refuse a request for a separate trial on such issue. See Art. 34, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., and authorities cited under Note 9 thereunder.
We find no such affidavit and no such request in this record.
We are directed to the allegations of appellant’s motion for continuance wherein it is alleged that an affidavit had been filed several months before the trial alleging that appellant was insane.
In Chapman v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 285, 124 S.W. 2d 112, we held that the request for a separate trial on the issue raised by the filing of an affidavit of present insanity must be made before announcing ready for trial on the issue of guilt.
In the absence of a bill of exception showing that an affidavit of present insanity of the accused had been filed, accompanied by a request for a separate trial on such issue, and that such separate trial had been denied, reversible error is not presented.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.