Court Opinion

ID: 9675085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:41:42.354184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:31.372525
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant challenges the correctness of our original opinion *370herein and relies upon Fite v. State, 158 Tex. Cr. Rep. 611, 259 S.W. 2d 198. He contends that in the Fite case we held inadmissible the same evidence we here uphold. With this contention, we cannot agree. In that case, we held that Article 3731a, V.A.C.S., did not alter or amend the hearsay rule. In the case at bar, the official records which were introduced were not hearsay and were certainly relevant because proof of the prior conviction was an integral part of the proof of the instant offense; i.e., driving while intoxicated (second offense).
It is too late to raise the question of notice, provided for by Section 3 of said act, in this court. Objection on that ground should have been made in the trial court. Hill v. State, No. 28,165, (Page 331 of this volume,) 290 S.W. 2d 677.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.