Court Opinion

ID: 9641683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:37:52.569137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.098823
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOE REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
Appellant insists that because of the testimony in the record that he had the “mind of a sixteen-year-old boy” the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict fixing his punishment at death and the verdict is contrary to both the law and the evidence.
While Art. 31, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., provides that “a person for an offense committed before he arrived at the age of seventeen years shall in no case be punished with death,” such statute is not applicable to the present case as the evidence shows that appellant.was twenty-eight years of age at the time of the trial and over the age of seventeen years on the date the offense was committed. Under the provisions of the statute it is the age of the accused that controls as to whether he may be punished with death rather than the degree of his mentality.
We have again examined the record in the light of the other contentions presented by appellant in his motion for rehearing and remain convinced that we properly disposed of the cause on original submission.
The motion is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.