Court Opinion

ID: 9762647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:27:54.249167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:36.095882
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant again urges that this cause should be reversed because there was not a proper transfer of the case from Criminal District Court No. 3 to Criminal District Court No. 5 in accordance with Article 52-158b, Sec. 3, V.A.C.C.P. This question was raised for the first time on appeal.
In addition to what we said on original submission, we note that in the recent case of McNeal v. State, 171 Texas Cr. Rep. 180, 346 S.W. 2d 345, construing Article 52-185b, supra, we said:
“In counties in which there are two or more district courts having concurrent jurisdiction in all felony cases with statutory authority to transfer cases from one to the other, the plea to the jurisdiction, because of the omission of such order, comes too late after notice of appeal.”
We also remain convinced that we properly disposed of appellant’s contention relating to the court’s charge on exculpatory statements on original submission.
In Lazarine v. State, 129 Texas Cr. Rep. 605, 91 S.W. 2d 363, a murder case in which the evidence revealed that appellant killed the deceased because deceased had been having sexual intercourse with appellant’s wife, this Court held that statements in the confession which merely showed the mental attitude of appellant at the time of the homicide did not require giving the special charge on exculpatory statements. See also Mendez v. State, 168 Texas Cr. Rep. 315, 327 S.W. 2d 454; Minton v. State, 164 Texas Cr. Rep. 580, 301 S.W. 2d 87; and Stephen v. State, 163 Texas Cr. Rep. 505, 293 S.W. 2d 789.
We note further, however, that the instruction on exculpatory *122statements found in the court’s charge is substantially the same as the one we approved in Minton v. State, supra.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.