Court Opinion

ID: 9767914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:34:02.99375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:34.593619
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
OPINION
MORRISON, Judge.
It has now been shown, by supplemental transcript, that appellant’s brief was timely filed and we will consider the other questions presented in his original brief.
Appellant complains of the court’s failure to grant his requested charge which would have told the jury:
“ * * * if (you) find and believe from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt therefrom, that the Defendant, *151Paul Gene Dodd, was so intoxicated, or under the influence of intoxicating drink, to the extent that he was incapable of forming the intent to deprive the said O. E. Jackson of one shotgun over the value of fifty dollars and to appropriate it to the use and benefit of him, the said Defendant, then you will acquit the Defendant.”
Our latest expression on this particular question is Dubois v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 557, 301 S.W.2d 97, cert. den. 356 U.S. 921, 78 S.Ct. 705, 2 L.Ed.2d 717. We hold that the trial court properly denied the requested charge.
The court did not comment on the weight of the evidence, as appellant contends, in instructing the jury as follows:
“You are further instructed that intoxication alone, if any, is never a defense to the commission of a crime and cannot be used as such, neither as to intent nor to the question of guilt.”
See Article 36, V.A.P.C.
Finding no reversible error, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
DOUGLAS, J., not participating.