Court Opinion

ID: 9824841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:32:32.438986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:09.732348
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
On original submission of this cause, counsel for appellant did not file a brief. On application for rehearing, it is insisted that we omitted to treat some questions that should have had our attention.
We have re-examined the record and also our original opinion. There is one additional matter that, perhaps, we should have discussed.
While the accused was testifying in his own behalf, he stated that up to 12 or 1 o’clock the day of the alleged burglary he worked for Mr. Bohorfoush and that his duties consisted of loading trucks. He denied, on cross-examination, that he was drunk during any of this time.
Over timely objections of the appellant’s counsel, the State was allowed to elicit from a Mr. Myers that the defendant came by Mr. Dickey’s mine between 10 and 11 o’clock a. m. on the day the house was burglarized and there engaged in a conversation with Mr. Dickey and at this time the defendant was drunk. The position is posed that this was an effort to contradict the appellant on an immaterial inquiry.
It appears logical to us that the State was privileged to establish this proof. It is consonant with reason and common knowledge that, if the accused was in fact drunk during the forenoon in question, the jury could infer therefrom that he was not loading cars, as he claimed.
Application for rehearing overruled.