Court Opinion

ID: 9646363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:58:00.051343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:30.680405
License: Public Domain

ON appellant's motion for rehearing.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that, being a deaf mute, he was denied his constitutional right of being confronted with the witnesses against him because the testimony of the witnesses was not communicated to him through an interpreter, or otherwise, during the trial of the case. He cites the case of Garcia v. State, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 593, 210 S. W. 2d 574, as supporting, by analogy, *140his contention. See, also, 14 Am. Jur., Criminal Law, Sec. 181, page 892.
The record before us fails to reflect that appellant made timely request of the trial court for the right hereinabove referred to.
The constitutional right of confrontation may be waived. Garcia v. State, supra; 14 Am. Jur., Criminal Law, Sec. 188, page 897.
It is apparent that appellant has here waived the right of confrontation, which he now insists upon.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.