Staten v. State

ON REHEARING.

January 17, 1923.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Two reasons are urged why appellant’s motion for rehearing should be granted. It is contended that reversible error arises from a question propounded to appellant by the State’s .attorney as to the fact that he did not tell to the grand jury a certain matter now testified to by him as a witness on this trial. The question asked is not set out in our former opinion. It was as follows: “This time you tell about this man running around Mr. Mitchell and this woman on the platform after you had called him out, you didn’t tell the grand jury about…