Court Opinion

ID: 9682082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:05:13.448005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:50.901876
License: Public Domain

DICKENSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to the Court’s holding that the owner of the missing diamond ring should not have been permitted to testify as to her ring’s weight. As noted in the majority opinion, an owner’s testimony of the property’s value is analogous to an owner’s testimony of the property’s weight. The Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Sullivan v. State, 701 S.W.2d 905 at 908 (Tex.Cr.App.1986):
It has long been the rule in this State that the owner of property is competent to testify as to the value of his own property.
Consequently, I would hold that the trial court did not err in overruling the objection to this testimony.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.