Court Opinion

ID: 9825575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:24:30.24599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:00.578603
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
Complaint is made in brief of appellant’s counsel on application for rehearing that we did not, m two instances in our original opinion, accurately state the record.
First in this: “ * * and the defendant was the beneficiary of an insurance policy in the amount of $100, payable upon the death of his wife.” We here set out the testimony of the defendant in reference thereto:
“Q. She had an insurance policy payable to her, didn’t she? A. A great beg (sic) one I reckon.
“Q. She had a $100.00 one, didn’t she? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And you had that changed to you, didn’t you? A. No sir; she done it.
“Q. And that was payable to her? A. That was to pay for her underwear and her vault with, that’s what it was.
*253“Q. And it was changed then to you? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And you became the beneficiary? A. Yes, sir.”
The second complaint relates to this statement in the opinion: “The next day, under the personal supervision of the assistant state toxicologist, an autopsy was performed. Enlarged photographs were taken of the face, neck and arms. They are in the record and bear evidence in corroboration of the various witnesses with reference to the visible injuries.”
The point is taken that as the pictures appear in the record it cannot be detected with the eye that there is evidence of scratches or bruises on the neck. There was expert evidence to the effect that the neck of deceased showed bruised areas, but upon an examination of the photographs, with the aid only of the naked eye, we are unable to say whether or not there appears on the neck evidence of bruises or scratches. It would have been more accurate, therefore, to have stated: “The next day, under the personal supervision of the assistant state toxicologist, an autopsy was performed. Enlarged photographs were taken of the face, neck and arms. They are in the record and, with the exception of the portrayed portions of the neck, bear visible evidence in corroboration of the various witnesses with reference to the injuries.”
We do not hesitate to make the explanation and correction.
This, in our judgment, does not in any way affect the conclusions we reached in the original opinion. Upon a further study of the record, we adhere to our views as expressed therein, and the application for rehearing is therefore overruled.
Application overruled.