Court Opinion

ID: 9648879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:37:02.465024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.994213
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
WOODLEY, Judge.
We have again examined the record in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing, and remain convinced that the questions discussed were properly disposed of in the original opinion.
The state proved the previous conviction alleged by introducing the information and the judgment on a plea of guilty.
For the purpose of showing that appellant and the person so convicted were one and the same, the deputy sheriff, Horton, was called who testified that he signed the complaint and made the arrest and that appellant was the person charged in said former case.
There was no error in the court’s permitting the witness to identify the complaint and to testify as to the case number and the character of offense therein charged. The complaint was not a necessary part of the state’s proof of the former conviction. It was used only in connection with the identification of appellant as the person so previously convicted.
Appellant first told the officer that he had brought the beer to the American Legion, and then said that he had “brought it up for a party that they were going to throw on the farm, he and some other fellows.” The officer testified that appellant first said that he brought the beer to the Legion and that “then he changed his story to this party out there.” Unless appellant’s explanation be construed to mean that he did not possess the beer for the purpose of sale, it did not constitute an affirmative defense.
If it be so construed, then such defense was adequately sub*413mitted by the court’s instruction to the jury to acquit if the beer was possessed for any purpose save and except the purpose of sale.
The case having been properly disposed of on original submission, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.