¶1ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
¶2We have carefully re-examined our position, set forth in our original opinion, in view of the able argument and scholarly brief submitted by the State.
¶3We failed to set forth in our original opinion inquiries made by the State upon cross-examination of a character or reputation witness, when such questions as these were asked: “Have you heard that the defendant was charged with being A.W. O.L. from Camp Bowie, Texas, on January 27, 1944 ? ”, and “Have you heard that the defendant was charged by authorities at Camp Bowie, Texas, with impersonating an N.C.O. on January 27, 1944? ” We think that the violation of military regulations are acts of misconduct peculiar to the military authorities and such acts do not frequently amount to what we normally regard as acts of misconduct or violations of the civilian law. A serviceman might be charged with the offense of A.W.O.L. because he was one minute late in coming back to his company quarters on Saturday night, and the punishment meted out might be confinement to quarters for one hour by the company commander. If we extended the rule to allow such questions as these, we would no doubt make it possible for some enterprising young prosecutor to ask an appellant’s neighbor if he ever heard appellant being fussed at by his wife for coming home late. We think that these two improper questions were also highly prejudicial and tended to deprive appellant of the fair trial that he was entitled to under the Constitution and laws of this State and of the United States.
¶4We remain convinced that a correct disposition was made of this case upon original submission and that the rule there announced was correct. For those reasons and the ones herein stated, the State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.