Court Opinion

ID: 9764613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:32:39.181447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:58.690281
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
BEAUCHAMP, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing appellant strenuously argues, among other things, that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting evidence as to an “extraneous transaction relating to the fifing of a shot into the house, some five months prior to the homicide, complained of in Bills of Exception Nos. 3, 4 and 5.”
*216In discussing this reliance seems to be had greatly on a statement that this court was mistaken in saying that the deceased was in the house at the time this shot was fired. A very careful examination of the statement of facts raises a possibility that we were mistaken. Of that we cannot be certain. The witness testifying on the subject said he was there that day, and then other questions following indicate that she meant that he was there that night and at the particular time of the shooting. Another witness, the son of deceased, gave evidence that may be construed to the contrary.
Our answer to this is that it is wholly immaterial whether he was there or not. The discussion in the original opinion overruling this contention is just as forceful as if he were there. The case of Mounts v. State, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 177, 185 S.W. 2d 731, relied upon by appellant will not sustain his contention. The extraneous matter inquired about in the Mounts case could have nothing to do with the murder for which he was being charged. In the instant case it is different. Appellant and his wife had separated. Soon thereafter she was living with deceased. His falling out with his wife clearly indicates his feeling towards the deceased at all times. His own testimony, as stated in the original opinion, brought the matter befóte the court and it was just as much a circumstance surrounding the murder as it would have been if it had occurred a day or two previous to it, though the proximity to the time of the shooting might have been more forceful in the minds of the jury.
The same reasoning will dispose of all other questions raised by the motion.
The original opinion sufficiently expresses the sentiment of the court on the issue as it is found in the record now before us. It is our conclusion that appellant’s motion for rehearing should be overruled.