Court Opinion

ID: 9654836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:52:33.382367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.023571
License: Public Domain

OVERSTREET, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result only because I believe the majority opinion incorrectly concludes that appellant’s second point of error, which complained of admission of testimony implying his membership in an Aryan prison gang, was not preserved for appellate review. The majority concludes that he waived this error when he failed to renew his objection and request an instruction to disregard the testimony at the end of the State’s presentation. Since appellant had lodged a timely objection initially, in my opinion the error was sufficiently preserved.
When the Court finds error has been committed in trial, a harmless error analysis should be conducted pursuant to Rule 81(b)(2). In this case, it is my belief that a harmless error analysis would lead to a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the complained of error did not contribute to appellant’s punishment.