The opinion
ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
BELCHER, Judge.
We are again urged to re-examine our holdings on the question of pre-trial inspection of written confessions. Prior to the *46 trial, appellant’s diligent counsel made a motion that a copy of the accused’s confession be delivered to him before the commencement of the trial. Such motion was refused. The state, in making out its case in chief, did not introduce in evidence appellant’s written confession. It was after the accused had testified in his own behalf that the state in rebuttal introduced the confession. At that time it was submitted to counsel for the accused for his inspection prior to its introduction. This procedure is in harmony with the prior holdings of this court and the majority rule. See State v. Kupis, 37 Del. (7 W. W. Harr.) 27, 179 Atl. 640 (1935) ; People v. Parisi, 270 Mich. 429 , 259 N.W. 127 (1935) ; Territory v. McFarlane, 7 N.M. 421 , 37 Pac. 1111 (1894) ; Abdell v. Commonwealth, 173 Va. 458 , 2 S.E. 2d 293 (1939; Brown v. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 671 , 19 S.E. 447 (1894) ; Steensland et al v. Hoppmann, 213 Wis. 65 , 30 N.W. 226 (1886) ; State v. Leland, 190 Ore. 598 , 227 P. 2d 785 (1951).
A recent exhaustive article on this subject appears in the Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 48, #3, p. 305.
Recently, in Pettigrew v. State, 163 Texas Cr. Rep. 194 , 289 S.W. 2d 935 , we said, “We know of no rule of law that would require the State to furnish the accused, before the trial, with copies of pictures it intends to introduce ag'ainst him.”
Louisiana alone, so far as we or appellant’s counsel can ascertain, is the only state which holds that, in the absence of a statute, denial of a pre-trial inspection of an accused’s written confession constitutes a deprivation of due process. State v. Dorsey, 22 So. 2d 273 (1948).
It is interesting to note that in State v. Shourds, 71 S. 2d 340 (1954), and State v. Lea, 84 So. 2d 169 (1955), the Supreme Court of Louisiana has held that the rule of Dorsey had no application in cases involving other documents, confessions which were not introduced in evidence or oral confessions.
A discussion of the cases arising under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16 and 17 (a) and those from states which have enacted statutes authorizing pre-trial inspection of documents in the hands of the prosecution would be of no benefit in this jurisdiction.
We have again examined appellant’s other contentions and *47 remain convinced that this cause was properly decided originally.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.