Court Opinion

ID: 9643579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:33:30.944855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:01.660135
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant contends that in that portion of our original opinion wherein we discussed Bill of Exception No. 1 we held that the evidence which he proffered, in the form of his driver’s license, was not admissible as being cumulative. We disclaim any intention of so holding. We now hold that such evidence was not relevant to any essential issue in the case. The state’s evidence was that the appellant, in wanton disregard of the rights of others, while intoxicated ran into the deceased and that his state of intoxication caused the tragedy. The appellant’s evidence was that the deceased backed into the path of his automobile, that “my car would not have hit him if he hadn’t moved back,” that the appellant was not intoxicated, and that the deceased’s death was chargeable to deceased and not to him. Both theories were submitted to the jury in the court’s charge. We fail to see the relevancy of the condition of the appellant’s eyesight under this state of the record.
Appellant contends that the statement of the prosecutor incorporated in Bill of Exception No. 4 constitutes reversible error, because it was outside the record. We do not find here some new and harmful fact injected into the case, nor is any mandatory provision of the statute violated. As we see it, the prosecutor was merely arguing that because of their limited knowledge of the appellant his witnesses were in no position to properly advise the jury as to his reputation.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.