The opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
MORRISON, Judge.
In our original opinion we said that the outcry was made immediately upon the mother’s return to their home. Appellant points out that this is not exactly accurate. The record made in the absence of the jury, which determined the admissibility of the testimony as to the outcry, does reflect that the mother returned home and noticed that prosecutrix looked “funny”; that she sent prosecutrix on a short errand; that her other daughter (appellant’s wife) came to the home highly upset about having found lipstick all over appellant’s face; that the mother then questioned prosecutrix, since she had lipstick on her face, and prosecutrix began to cry and admitted that appellant “had been fooling with her.” In this, as in all cases, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact time elapsing between the incident and the outcry. At one time the mother estimated ten minutes. The child estimated two. Other facts would indicate a longer period. The interval of time itself is not entirely controlling. We have carefully reviewed the record and remain convinced that the child did not have sufficient opportunity to fabricate that which she told her mother and that the same was admissible.
We have examined the bill of exception relating to argument and find no new fact injected into the record thereby. Neither is it manifestly improper or prejudicial. The prosecutor merely told the jury that the verdict which they returned in the case at bar either would or would not deter others depending upon its severity.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this case originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.