Court Opinion

ID: 9665238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:43:07.163897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.091868
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant urges us to hold that the officers who testified could not have recognized appellant as he passed them in his car on the night in question and, therefore, their testimony should be rejected as being no evidence at all. To support appellant’s contention would effect a usurpation of the function of the jury never contemplated by the framers of our Constitution.
Appellant again questions the admissibility of the internal revenue notice addressed to appellant and found by the officers in the automobile in question. It should be borne in mind that in this case appellant did not testify nor did he offer any witnesses in his behalf. He contends that his objection thereto did not raise the question of the officers’ right to search the vehicle, but was directed solely to the contention that such evidence was hearsay and not relevant to any issue. In analyzing such a contention, the notice in question would stand on the same footing as a letter addressed to accused. Could we consistently say that where an automobile is found abandoned, containing such a letter, that the letter would not be relevant to the *109issue of ownership or the issue of who had been its driver prior to abandonment? Though not conclusive, such evidence would certainly be relevant on such issue and hence admissible.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.