Court Opinion

ID: 9858119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:15:09.080021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:06.680669
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant strenuously argues that reversible error is reflected by the answer of Officer Williams to the question as to why he *328was on the particular highway at the time in question wherein he stated that he “had information that he (appellant) was transporting, coming in out * * Appellant leveled only a general objection, and immediately thereafter the jury was retired and upon their return the matter was not again alluded to. “I object to that question and the answer,” which was the only objection made in the case at bar; is not sufficient to preserve error under the holdings of this Court in McGee v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. Rep. 639, 238 S.W. 2d 707; Luevanos v. State, 157 Tex. Cr. Rep. 623, 252 S.W. 2d 179; Wade v. State, 275 S.W. 2d 665; Ritchie v. State, 164 Tex. Cr. Rep. 38, 296 S.W. 2d 551; and Miller v. State, 166 Tex. Cr. Rep. 43, 310 S.W. 2d 337.
Appellant further asserts that we were in error in holding that the court did not err in failing to respond to his demand that he be shown a certain document, not then in the possession of the witness, but from which he had refreshed his memory at some undisclosed time in the past. There is no showing in this record as to what information was contained in the memorandum or that it in any way conflicted with the testimony the witness had given. Attention is directed to the holdings of this Court in Angle v. State, 165 Tex. Cr. Rep. 305, 306 S.W. 2d 718; Blum v. State, 166 Tex. Cr. Rep. 541, 317 S.W. 2d 931; and Nisbet v. State, 336 S.W. 2d 142.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.