Moss v. State

ON REHEARING.

January 2, 1924.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

— It It is again insisted that the testimony of Dr. Douglass detailing the conversation had with appellant, was wrongfully admitted, it being urged that in such testimony there was nothing to point out or individuate prosecutrix as the person had in mind by appellant in what he said to the doctor. The dissenting opinion in Knight v. State, 64 Texas Crim. Rep., 541, 144 S. W. Rep. 992, is cited and chiefly relied on as authority for the contention. The distinguished writer of said dissent discusses at length the inadmissibility of certain…