Court Opinion

ID: 9824933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:45:46.134416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:15.749060
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[5] Counsel for appellant in their application for rehearing are insistent that no predicate was laid for the admission of the defendant to the witness Watford, as the same appears in one part of the testimony, but concede that a proper predicate was laid for the admission by the defendant to the witness Watford, as the same appears in another part of the testimony, transcript; the admission on the part of the defendant being “that the still was his.” A careful reading of the record in this case shows conclusively that there was but one conversation testified to between the witness Watford, and the defendant, or the sheriff, Alex May, or any one else in reference to the defendant’s connection with the still alleged to have been owned and operated by him. When the state offered to prove by the witness Watford, in the first place, what was said by the defendant, it is trufe no predicate was attempted to be laid showing that the admission or confession was voluntary, but it was immediately following this that such qualifying questions were asked the witness and answers made as now lead appellant to concede that the proper predicate was laid for the admission of such confessions. In fact, the witness appears to have been qualified to meet the very objections raised at that time to his testimony, and it clearly appearing that the testimony referred to but one and the same conversation, there is no merit in appellant’s contention.
As stated in the original opinion, this was the same conversation, dealing with the same alleged admission, testified to by the witness May, and if error in admitting it in •the first instance, the subsequent qualification of the witness, showing the confession to have been voluntary, cured such error.
This much meets the objections raised by appellant, and establishes the correctness of the court’s ruling; but aside from this, there are other reasons shown by all of the testimony, upon which the correctness of the trial court’s ruling could well be predicated.
The application for rehearing is overruled.