Court Opinion

ID: 9778524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:11:16.5359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:11.253846
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is bottomed upon the proposition that the error in the charge, as pointed out in our original opinion, was such as not to prejudice the rights of the appellant. In other words, it is insisted that the error was harmless.
It will be remembered that the admissibility of the confession in evidence was of vital importance to both the state and the appellant.
One of the grounds relied upon by appellant to defeat the admission in evidence of the confession was that he had been promised help if he would make the confession.
Under the authorities cited in our original opinion, if such was the fact, the confession was not admissible, regardless of the other grounds relied upon to defeat its admission.
Appellant was entitled to have that fact question passed upon by the jury directly and without reference to or contingent upon any other fact or facts. The charge of the court did not accord to the appellant that right.
We cannot say, especially in view of the death penalty assessed in this case, that such denial of a substantial right was harmless.
Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.