Court Opinion

ID: 9770925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:25:36.096927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:22.579383
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
The objection was not, in my opinion, sufficient to call the trial court’s attention to the absence of a showing of time, place or person in the question propounded to the witness Wilson. It *156was a general objection, which was renewed after the question had been rephrased to meet that part of the objection to the prior question “The Court will remember he asked ‘didn’t you tell somebody,’ not no proper predicate . . .
The case of Pierson v. State, 145 Texas Cr. Rep. 388, 168 S.W. 2d 256, appears to be authority for the proposition that the objection that no proper predicate was laid is a general objection.
As to the rule which requires the question to the witness sought to be impeached to specify the time when, place where and person to whom the supposed contradictory statement is alleged to have been made, attention is called to the following statement found in McCormick and Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, Sec. 342, p. 428:
“The court should not forget that the only purpose of the present rule is to insure an adequate warning to the witness. It should never be made an arbitrary requirement. If the trial court feels that the question used fully called the witness’ attention to the alleged statement that should be sufficient. Too often the courts lose sight of the fact that this rule is only a means to an end.”
I respectfully enter my dissent.