The opinion
*19 ON state’s motion for rehearing
McDonald, judge.
The state has directed our attention to a quoted holding in Bumpass v. State, 160 Texas Cr. Rep. 428 , 271 S.W. 2d 953 , wherein the arresting officer was asked what he did with the defendant after he was arrested, and the officer answered: “Well, I started into town with him and asked if he wanted a blood test.” The opinion continues:
“After considerable discussion between counsel and the bench, objection was sustained and the jurors were instructed not to consider that portion of the answer which related to a blood test. This alone would not reflect reversible error. Sublett v. State, 158 Texas Cr. Rep. 627 , 258 S.W. 2d 336 .”
We do not feel that the above excerpt from the opinion in Bumpass, supra, is any more than dicta. It did not control the disposition of the case. The case was reversed for the reasons stated in the opinion. It is authority only for the rule that the conduct set forth therein constitutes reversible error.
We are not here dealing with a case of a witness giving an unresponsive answer and relying solely upon that ground for reversal. We are here confronted with a prosecutor propounding a direct question and receiving an affirmative reply, and therefore deliberately getting before the jury information which he knew, or should have known, was inadmissible.
Remaining convinced that the case was correctly disposed of in the original opinion, the state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.