Court Opinion

ID: 9767324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:16:43.999282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.515523
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Appellant insists that he was entitled to have the jury instructed in accordance with the provisions of Art. 1257a, Penal Code, and that we erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.
In Wheeler v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. Rep. 140, 239 S. W. 2d 105, we held that it was no longer error to instruct the jury in accordance therewith and that such a charge was proper, and in reaching that conclusion expressly overruled the cases of Hill v. State, 130 Tex. Cr. R. 585, 95 S. W. 2d 106; Jamison v. State, 141 Tex. Cr. R. 349, 148 S. W. 2d 405; Riles v. State, 141 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 150 S. W. 2d 1043; Scott v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 4, 190 S. W. 2d 828, announcing a contrary conclusion.
Appellant insists that the holding in the Wheeler case, supra, supports his contention here.
In our original opinion, we endeavored to make it clear that the sole and only defense offered under the evidence was that of insanity and that such a charge under such circumstances would extend the defense of insanity beyond the provisions of Art. 34, P. C.
We remain convinced of the correctness of our original conclusion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.