Court Opinion

ID: 9774053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:07:37.801545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:01.394605
License: Public Domain

*153OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
This Court has before it a Motion for Rehearing filed by the State. The motion begins with a faulty interpretation of the opinion delivered by this Court on July 7, 1982.
The charge in this case was burglary of a habitation, entering with intent to commit aggravated assault. We did not conclude that the State was required to prove that the hammer used was a deadly weapon under this form of burglary. If the State would examine page six of the opinion, it would note that such a requirement was expressly denied in the overruling of Appellant’s Ground of Error No. Four.
As noted in the opinion, the nature, origin, and manner of use of the hammer are, however, extremely relevant in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence of Appellant’s intent at the time of entry. In this regard, the evidence concerning the hammer was fatally deficient.
The second alleged confrontation between the complainant and the Appellant on August 29, 1979, was not and is not considered probative of the Appellant’s state of mind on August 26, due to the intervening physical confrontation between the two parties and the reporting of the initial incident to the police and Appellant’s mother.
We are unpersuaded that the record discloses more than an interrupted burglary/theft, leading to a physical confrontation between Appellant and the complainant and followed, three days later, by a second burglary actuated by ill-will and an intent to commit aggravated assault or worse.
Under the pleadings and the evidence, we hereby deny the State’s Motion for Rehearing.