Article 35, supra, Note 5. Further, mere proof that an accused was not bright or was of weak mind does not raise the issue of insanity. Kirby v. State, 49 Tex.Crim. R., 93 S.W. 1030; Coffey v. State, 60 Tex.Crim. R., 131 S.W. 216; Hogue v. State, 65 Tex.Crim. R., 146 S.W. 905; Craven v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. R., 247 S.W. 515; Banks v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. R., 112 S.W.2d 745. "
Article 35, supra, Note 5. Further, mere proof that an accused was not bright or was of weak mind does not raise the issue of insanity. Kirby v. State, 49 Tex.Crim. R., 93 S.W. 1030; Coffey v. State, 60 Tex.Crim. R., 131 S.W. 216; Hogue v. State, 65 Tex.Crim. R., 146 S.W. 905; Craven v. State, 93 Tex.Crim. 328, 247 S.W. 515; Banks v. State, 133 Tex.Crim. R., 112 S.W.2d 745. In a number of cases this Court has held that the evidence was insufficient to raise the defense of insanity and that the trial court did not err in refusing to charge thereon over the timely presented objection or special requested charge of the defendant.
In this case the defendant took the witness stand and on direct and cross-examination testified in detail to the events of the day, his work, his visits to taverns, his experiences at home, and as to what was said and done before the fatal shooting. Language in Banks v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 541, 112 S.W.2d 745, 746, on motion for rehearing, seems applicable here. It is: 'So far as the facts reveal his testimony was clearly and intelligently given, and if accepted by the jury as true made out a complete and perfect defense of accidental killing.