Roark v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

BERRY, Judge.

This case was affirmed at a former term of this court and is now before us on appellant’s motion for rehearing. The original opinion was written by the writer and he feels constrained m candor to say that a mature consideration of appellant’s motion for rehearing convinces him that he utterly misconceived the lawr on the controlling question in the case, towit, on the question of proof of extraneous crimes, and that the original opinion is therefore clearly wrong. This being true, the publication of the original opinion could serve no useful purpose and it…