Court Opinion

ID: 9773966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:05:24.608463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:00.128263
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant contends that we did not distinguish this case from our relatively recent case of Noe v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 483, 286 S.W.2d 942. In that case the charge read in part as follows: “In your deliberations you should not attempt to arrive at a verdict by lot or chance or by ballots as to the particular punishment each juror is in favor of assessing * *
In the case at bar the portion of the charge quoted in our original opinion relating to the jury’s verdict does not mention punishment.
We have examined the record in Winfrey v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 209 S.W. 151, upon which appellant relies, and it is apparent that such case was reversed because the charge was an oral rather than a written one. Anything else in the opinion must be considered as dicta.
Remaining convinced that a proper disposition was made originally, the appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.