¶1ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING.
¶2Appellant insists that the search of her residence was without authority of law and that the testimony showing the finding of the wine therein was not admissible.
¶3Testifying as a witness in her own behalf, appellant said that the wine found by the officers was “my wine.” She explained that the wine was possessed for her own use and that of friends and not for the purpose of sale. Appellant thereby admitted the very fact to which she was objecting — which was proof of the fact that the wine was in her possession.
¶4An accused cannot complain of testimony where he testified to the same fact. See: Johnson v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 293, *27242 S. W. (2d) 421; Reusch v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 45 S. W. (2d) 209; Moss v. State, 121 Tex. Cr. R. 614, 50 S. W. (2d) 835; Due v. State, 123 Tex. Cr. R. 73, 57 S. W. (2d) 849; Bowers v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 387, 125 S. W. (2d) 555; Weaver v. State, 144 Tex. Cr. R. 590, 165 S. W. (2d) 106; Hamilton v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 78, 165 S. W. (2d) 737; Myers v. State, 194 S. W. (2d) 91.
¶5We remain convinced of the correctness of the conclusions originally expressed.
¶6The motion for rehearing is overruled.
¶7Opinion approved by the Court.