Court Opinion

ID: 9668569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:18:19.009878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:11.140878
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s second motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
The statement of facts filed herein, being a photostat of a purported statement of facts, including a photostat of purported signatures, does not comply with Art. 759a V.A.C.C.P., and should not have been considered.
We are not impressed with the contention that Bill of Exception No. 1 certifies error requiring reversal. The bill relates to the blood sample tested by a chemist and the testimony as to its alcohol content. It certifies that the defendant “objected and excepted to the introduction of a vial containing the blood of the defendant
Appellant’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.