Court Opinion

ID: 9767904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:33:10.39887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:34.478464
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that our opinion affirming his conviction ignores his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, Sec. 9, of our State Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St. to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, and to due process of law.
As we understand appellant’s contention, it is that the officers unlawfully entered his home without a warrant in violation of his right of privacy and that under such facts he cannot be convicted for subsequently committing the offense of seriously threatening to take human life.
Certain federal and state authorities are cited by appellant, including Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436; Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081; United States v. Stone, D.C., 232 F.Supp. 396; Brock v. United States, 223 F.2d 681 (5th Cir., 1955), and State of Texas v. Gonzales, 388 F.2d 145 (5th Cir., 1968), which involved the search of one’s premises or his person in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure and also the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The authorities cited are not here applicable, as there was no search of appellant’s home or person to obtain evidence.
The court’s instruction to the jury “that a threat that a person will do an act merely to protect himself, or to prevent the commission of some unlawful act by another, does not constitute an offense,”— while not required under the evidence— amply protected appellant’s rights, if any, under Art. 1267, P.C.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.