Court Opinion

ID: 9654055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:04:25.977363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:05.514423
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant’s earnest and able attorney now complains that we did not discuss his objection to the exhibition to the jury by Lupe Garza of the bullet wounds in her legs. We have re-examined his formal bills of exception and do not find such proof objected to therein. They relate to her entire testimony and do not mention the exhibition of the wounds. There are no informal bills, and therefore the question is not properly presented for review.
We find the record in a comparable condition concerning the proof of the extent of the injuries to George Wise.
Appellant again urges that the trial court erred in failing to charge on the law of exculpatory statements. He would have us consider the statement, “Then a big fellow started after me and I shot him twice,” as a complete plea of self defense. This we cannot do. A statement is not exculpatory unless it exculpates. We cannot read into such a sentence all the elements requisite to raise the issue of self defense.
Remaining convinced that we properly decided this case originally, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.