Court Opinion

ID: 9765285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:58:02.613171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:07.891082
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S motion for rehearing.
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant complains of our disposition of his Bill of Exception Nos. 3 and 6.
Bill of Exception No. 3 is directed at the failure of the court to give a specially requested charge instructng the jury not to consider the testimony of two witnesses. The bill fails to show that any objection was made to the introduction of the testimony when it was offered and, therefore, fails to reflect error.
Bill of Exception No. 6 complains of the overruling of certain objections to the testimony of the witness Nollner.
The bill is deficient in that nowhere therein do we find a certificate by the court that the facts which form the basis of the objection are true. Such a bill presents nothing for review. 4 Tex. Juris., Sec. 206, p. 293.
In this connection, we call appellant’s attention to the fact *595that if a chemist or toxicologist is present and observes the making of a test, or if it is made under his supervision, he may testify as to the result of the test.
The bill fails to show that the witness was not present and that he did not supervise the making of the test.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.