Court Opinion

ID: 9660851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:22:29.434114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:22.759379
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
McDonald, Judge
Our opinion on state’s motion for rehearing is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor:
The state contends that appellant made no objections and reserved no exceptions to the court’s amended charge; that, having failed to do so, any defects were waived; and that no error was shown, therefore, in refusing the special requested charge originally presented.
An examination of the record shows only one charge. There is only one file mark on the charge, and it bears no earmarks, signs, or designations showing that it was ever modified or amended.
In its motion for rehearing, the state refers to the “trial court’s qualification to said requested charge.” The court merely used this qualification to complete the bill of exception by showing the instruction given in the main charge, thereby justifying his refusal of the requested charge- This instruction had to be contained in the main charge or it could not have been quoted as it was by the court in his qualification.
The state’s second motion for rehearing is overruled.