Court Opinion

ID: 9831109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:49:29.356538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:31.195630
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant renews complaint of the failure of the trial court to affirmatively submit his defensive theory. We have carefully considered the record. If we understand same, the State relied on proof of the fact that the State witnesses saw appellant take from his car two jugs of whiskey, carry same a distance of twelve or fifteen feet, *4and place same down not far from the road; also that as appellant drove away from this place he was seen to take a bottle of whiskey out of his pocket and throw it in a ditch.
As stated in our original opinion, the court inserted in his main charge which was submitted to appellant’s attorneys prior to being read to the jury, for their inspection and objections to be stated,— that if the jury found that Jack Kelly placed the whisky on the ground where the officers found it, or if they had a reasonable doubt of that fact, and that the defendant did not know that the bottle of whiskey was in his car until he threw the same out, or if they had a reasonable doubt of that fact, — they should acquit the defendant. It passes our understanding how the court could have more pointedly and directly given a charge which covered fully the defensive theories of this case. Upon exception by the appellant to this part of the charge, it was stricken out. Appellant is in no position to complain. The court had in his charge the ■ affirmative defensive theory, — appellant objected at the time to same being submitted,-and to meet his objection the paragraph containing said instruction was stricken out. We think the contention of appellant that his exception to said paragraph was based upon some matter of form, to be entirely without merit.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.