Court Opinion

ID: 9762651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:28:06.155361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:36.227213
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
Appellant complains of our holding that he waived any complaint as to the search by his failure to object at the time the pistol was introduced in evidence. He points to his objection as to what the officer found and the trial court’s agreement that he had “a running objection to the fruits of the search”, the defendant’s contention being that any search was unlawful.
Assuming that the objection was sufficient, the admission of the evidence showing that a pistol was found in the automobile is not ground for reversal, the record containing a stipulation that the pistol introduced in evidence was under the front seat and was loaded, and that it was removed from appellant’s car on the day in question; and appellant testified in regard to the two firearms he had in the car. Vogt v. State, 159 Texas Cr. Rep. 211, 258 S.W. 2d 795, cert, denied, 346 U.S. 901; Cortez v. State, 165 Texas Cr. Rep. 320, 306 S.W. 2d 713; Rodriguez v. State, 168 Texas Cr. Rep. 481, 329 S.W. 2d 282; Hudson v. State, 170 Texas Cr. Rep. 400, 391 S.W. 2d 448.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.