rehearing">

OPINION

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

DICE, Judge.

Appellant re-urges the contention that the articles found on his person were obtained as the result of an illegal search.

We have again examined the record and remain convinced that, under the facts, the appellant’s arrest without a warrant was authorized under the Dallas city ordinance enacted under the authority of Art. 214, V.A.C.C.P. (now Art. 14.03, V.A.C.C.P.), introduced in evidence by the state. The search of appellant, being incident to a lawful arrest, was legal.

In his motion, appellant insists that he was denied "Equal Protection Of The Law Under Voir Dire,” in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the right to demand “The Nature And Cause Of The Accusation Against Him,” as provided by Art. 1, Sec. 10, of our State Constitution, Vernon’s Ann. St., when the trial court overruled his request to examine the officer on voir dire, “To Show The Legality Or Probable Cause Of His Arrest.”

We overrule the contention and observe that while appellant was not permitted to ask certain questions on the voir dire examination he later, on cross-examination of the witness, fully questioned him relative to the facts and' circumstances surrounding the arrest.

In his motion, appellant also insists that the court erred in not dismissing the charge against him because "He Was Denied A Fair And Speedy Trial,” in violation of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Art. 1, Section 10, of the Constitution of this State.

The record shows that the indictment was returned against appellant on July 19, 1965, and that his trial was on March 28, 1966. No request is shown to have been made by appellant for an earlier trial. The contention is overruled. Dagley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 394 S.W.2d 179.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress