Court Opinion

ID: 9862840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:17:24.014377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:01.748248
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
By brief and in argument counsel complains that we failed to distinguish the case at bar from Sample v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 200, 254 S.W.2d 401. We shall now do so. In Sample the accused was compelled to answer repeated questions about his prior marriages and divorces. An objection was interposed prior to any answer being given; the objection was overruled, and the court refused to instruct the jury to disregard such matters. In the case at bar appellant’s objection to the argument was sustained, and the jury was instructed not to consider the same. In Sample the jury was led to believe, by the court’s ruling, that the questions and answers were proper and relevant to appellant’s guilt. In the case at bar they were told the opposite.
These factors, in addition to those set forth in our original opinion, sufficiently distinguish the two cases.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this appeal originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.