Court Opinion

ID: 9642360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:55:51.02674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:14.850929
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing complains of the disposition of his exception relating to the testimony of Sheriff Ed Williams when recalled by the state on rebuttal. We disposed of this bill in our original opinion on the form of the objection. Appellant urges: (1) that part of the objection “he was still in custody and could not make a confession that way” was sufficient to direct the trial court’s attention to the fact that the defendant took the position that the evidence of the silence of the accused while in custody, with respect to his defense, was inadmissible; and (2) that the evidence as to such silence on the question of self-defense was obviously hurtful and inadmissible for any purpose, therefore no specific ground of objection was required.
We have reexamined the record in the light of able counsel’s brief and oral argument and find the following.
There are no formal bills of exception. The sole exception indexed in the question and answer statement of facts is “Defendant’s Bill of Exception — 192.” On page 192 is shown this question directed to Sheriff Williams by the district attorney: “I believe you testified that he told you that he shot Meardis Davis, Jr.?” to which appellant made the objection quoted in the original opinion: “I am going to object; he had him in charge at that time and he was under arrest and in confinement. I don’t believe that is admissible, not a proper confession in form like the law provides. I don’t believe it is admissible under the circumstances.” The objection was overruled, but at this point no exception was reserved.
As suggested in the question, Sheriff Williams had testified previously to the statement of appellant made to him in which appellant admitted the shooting.
Also on page 192 of the statement of facts appears the district attorney’s question to the sheriff: “During that conversation, Mr. Williams, did the Defendant say anything to you *213about having killed Meardis Davis, Jr. in self-defense?”, and the answer of the witness: “No.”
The attorney for appellant in the trial then made the objection stated in our original opinion: “I want to make the same objection; he was still in custody and could not make a confession that way.”
The court’s ruling on the objection was, “You may have your exceptions,” followed by defense counsel’s statement: “Note our exceptions to all this testimony,” and the trial court’s further remark, “You may have your exceptions.”
Appellant’s objection to the last question as quoted above, and in our original opinion, begins on page 192 of the statement of facts and we make no point of the fact that the exception appears on page 193 while indexed as appearing at page 192. We suggest, however, that the index should point out the page where the exception itself appears.
We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention as to the sufficiency of the last objection.
In addition to what was said in our original opinion, we observe that all of the testimony of the sheriff regarding the statement made by appellant had been heard by the jury prior to the objection above quoted from page 192 of the statement of facts, and that the question relating to appellant’s silence as to his claim of self-defense was answered before any objection was made. No motion was made that any of the testimony so heard by the jury be withdrawn from their consideration.
It follows that reversible error is not shown by the exception reserved “to all of this testimony.”
Upon the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of malice, we observe that the jury rejected the sole and only justification or excuse offered for the killing. The question of the condition of the mind of appellant remained for their consideration. The jury was authorized to find the existence of malice from the acts and circumstances surrounding the killing.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.