Court Opinion

ID: 9665222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:42:56.96145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.011427
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
MORRISON, Judge.
Our original opinion of affirmance was predicated upon the failure of Bill of Exception No. 1 to negative the fact that some one other than appellant might have known why he was at the particular place in question. We stand squarely upon the rule that the bill itself must reflect the error, and the court will not look to the record to find the same.
A reasonable construction to be given the argument here complained of was that the same constituted a deduction by state’s counsel, from the evidence, that appellant was at the house in question for the purpose of delivering the case of beer which was found in his automobile. All the evidence supporting such a conclusion was already in the record.
It has always been the rule that a prosecutor may draw logical deductions from the evidence.
*150We have held, in Lewis v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. R. 544, 236 S.W. (2d) 812, that “the implication that the language used had reference to the defendant’s failure to testify must be a necessary one.” To us, the argument here appears to have been directed to the evidence already in the record rather than being an allusion to the appellant’s failure to supply more.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.