Court Opinion

ID: 9647946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:56:18.812516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:54.794193
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant presses upon us his contention that he was entitled to introduce evidence showing that the intersection in question was unusually dangerous and hazardous, and that we erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.
We recognize that similar proof is taken cognizance of in negligence cases. The admission of such evidence is usually founded upon the issue of contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence is not a defense to negligent homicide.
On the other hand, if proof of the extra hazardous condition be admissible upon the issue of contributory negligence it would also be admissible upon the question of negligence of the *284accused, on the theory that the greater the hazard the greater is the degree of care required.
It must be remembered that in negligent homicide cases there must be no apparent intent to kill on the part of the accused but there must exist an apparent danger, by reason of the negligent act, of causing the death of the deceased or some other person.
Such being true, then, the evidence in negligent homicide cases should be limited to facts and conditions existing not in the past but at the time the offense was alleged to have been committed.
We remain convinced that we were correct, originally, in affirming the judgment of conviction.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.