Court Opinion

ID: 9766515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:51:48.295751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:23.517413
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
Once again the subject is Collins v. State, 602 S.W.2d 537 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). See also Chambers v. State, No. 1147-83.
Just as the opinion of the Court in Collins pretermitted mention of Ex parte Duran, 581 S.W.2d 683 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), because it did not involve objected hearsay— and, in my view at least, was wrong in labeling the faulty stipulation “trial error,” see Thornton v. State, 601 S.W.2d 340, 343-348 (Tex.Cr.App.1980)—so also “the Lumpkin line of cases” [Lumpkin v. State, 524 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1975)] was not addressed because the testimony as to custody of the service trailer, though shown to be based on hearsay, was also unobjected. Unlike the sole contention in Lumpkin that all evidence was insufficient to show ownership of the trailer, id., at 304, the claim in Collins was that what evidence remained after excluding erroneously admitted hearsay over objection was insufficient. Collins, at 538, 539 and 540. Most assuredly Collins was not intended or designed to “overrule[] the_ Lumpkin line of cases sub silentio,” nor may it reasonably be read to do so. If *837there is any doubt of that, we can dispel it easily enough.
In my judgment we are experiencing some difficulty in these matters purely because the State seeks to press upon the Court a notion that on appeal any “erroneous receipt” of hearsay evidence — regardless of an objection — must be regarded as “trial error.” The endeavor is to make “trial error” a talisman for remand rather than suffer an examination of the evidence for possible order of acquittal.
Apparently the State perceives Collins as an instrument to accomplish its goal. However, the “Lumpkin line,” Collins and Porier v. State, 662 S.W.2d 602 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), may all be reconciled when approached from the perspective of what an appellant is contending on appeal in such cases. Thus, in Lumpkin the ground of error was straight, unadulterated insufficiency of evidence admitted without objection but shown to be hearsay; in Collins grounds of error complained of “trial error” — hearsay admitted over objection— but then sought to exclude that evidence in consideration of sufficiency; Porier started off like Collins but then he contended that all the evidence was insufficient. Accordingly, when the contention is validly presented on appeal sufficiency of all evidence will be considered for what it is worth; but a contention that without hearsay erroneously admitted over objection the remaining evidence is insufficient will not be determined.
Therefore, I join the judgment of the Court.