Court Opinion

ID: 9668546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:17:47.193836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:45.971612
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge,
dissenting.
Appellant objected that the State had failed to lay the proper predicate for the admission of the results of the laboratory tests. This objection is not sufficient. Appellant did not specify why or how the proper predicate had not been laid:
“MR. EASON: (Defense Counsel) Your Honor, at this time we would object to the introduction of State’s Exhibit No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the reasons that it is our position that they were obtained as a result of their legal (sic) search and seizure, and we further object that the testimony of this man should not be admissible but should be stricken from the record because it’s not the best evidence and the analysis was not performed by him.
The predicate has not been laid to allow him to bring this into evidence and for those reasons we object.
u * * *
“MR. EASON: Your Honor, I object to that because he has not laid the proper predicate arid anything he says will be hearsay.
“THE COURT: You are reading from the official records, did you check those reports?
“THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Overruled.”
Roberts v. State, 537 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), answers appellant’s “best evidence” contention.
In Canada v. State, 589 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), this Court wrote:
“... An objection that the proper predicate has not been laid is too general and does not merit consideration. Boss v. State, 489 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Russell v. State, 468 S.W.2d 373 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). See Bennett v. State, 394 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.Cr.App.1965), and 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Section 171.”
See Paige v. State, 573 S.W.2d 16 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
No reversible error is shown.
The judgment should be affirmed.