Court Opinion

ID: 9682011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:03:26.298193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.001702
License: Public Domain

ON state’s motion for rehearing.
GRAVES, Judge.
Our attention has been called to the fact that in our original opinion we erroneously stated that two shots were fired by appellant into the body of the deceased. In this we were in error. There was but one shot fired from the pistol, making an entrance wound, as well as an exit wound. The original opinion is corrected to show but one shot fired.
We are of the opinion that the objected to charge should have been limited to one defense and not necessarily demanding disbelief upon the part of the jury of appellant’s plea of self-defense before they could consider the testimony relative to an accidental shooting. Proof of either defense satisfactory to the jury would have been sufficient upon which to base an acquittal, and either defense could have been considered by them without having first disposed of the other. For instance, an acquittal could have been had on the theory of self-defense, and the theory of accident need not have been passed upon; and again, an acquittal could have been held on the theory of accident without passing upon the self-defense portion of such transaction. We do not think the cases cited to us by the state are in opposition to the views herein expressed.
We think the case of Massie v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 116, *508217 S. W. (2d) 1001, to be in point herein. It is said in 24 Tex. Jur. p. 535, sec. 65, “that the accused should have his theory presented pertinently, plainly and affirmatively, untrammeled by unfavorable conditions.” See McPeak v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 50, 187 S. W. 754, supra.
We adhere to the views expressed in our original opinion, and the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.