Court Opinion

ID: 9674117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:21.145093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.644400
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing
DICE, Judge.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant re-urges his contention that the court erred in permitting the state to introduce in evidence the watch taken from the prosecutrix’ companion over his objeción that it was proof of a collateral crime. Under the evidence, the taking of the watch was shown to be a part of the res gestae of the transaction in which the prosecutrix was raped and was therefore admissible in evidence under the authorities cited in our opinion. An examination of the record further reflects that, before the watch was admitted in evidence, the prosecutrix had testified, without objection, that, on the night in question, the appellant and his companion had robbed her companion of his money and his watch at the point of a gun. We fail to perceive any error by the admission of the watch in evidence.
We have again examined the record in the light of the other points of error urged by the appellant and remain convinced that no error is shown and that the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.