Court Opinion

ID: 9681552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:33.132729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.421923
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction because I do not construe the questions asked as proof of extraneous offenses. *504It is only where a question is so stated that it amounts to an assertion of fact and implies the commission of another specific offense that it constitutes reversible error. Wharton v. State, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 326, 248 S.W. 2d 739. The questions named no dates, places or parties and were not, as I viewed them, tantamount to proof that the accused had committed any specific act at any specified time or place in the past.