Court Opinion

ID: 9774168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:10:32.895969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:03.211481
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S second motion for rehearing
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
A supplemental transcript has been filed for the purpose of showing that appellant excepted to the charge.
Without deciding whether or not the point was properly reserved, we have decided to consider the attack upon the charge because of the omission of an instruction on circumstantial evidence.
*530As will be seen from a reference to the original opinion, the arresting officers were told by the appellant that the deceased had come to her saying that she was pregnant and did not want the child, that the appellant had inserted an instrument into the deceased’s womb and injected air therein and after the deceased had become faint and had been carried away in an ambulance she, the appellant, had hidden the instruments. It was the finding of these instruments where the appellant told the officers that she had hidden them that made the above testimony admissible under the terms of Article 727, V.A.C.C.P.
Appellant’s written confession was also introduced in evidence in which she described the method which she employed in performing abortions, told how she had employed this method upon the body of the deceased and then told how the deceased “passed out” following the application of her method.
The doctor who performed the autopsy upon the deceased testified that the deceased was pregnant and that the method of air injections which the appellant had confessed she used, in his professional opinion, had caused the death of the deceased.
The testimony set forth did not make this such a case as would require the giving of a charge on circumstantial evidence.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.