Court Opinion

ID: 9755350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:35:31.062073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:06.439806
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by:
KAREN ANGELINI, Justice.
I respectfully dissent, in part, to the majority’s opinion. Any error the trial court made in restricting Bohls’ attorney from making objections was harmless.
We can only reverse the trial court’s judgment on the ground that it made an error of law if we conclude that the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or it probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting the ease to this court. Tex.R.App. P. 44.1.
With regard to the court’s restriction of Bohls’ attorney’s objections, a review of the record shows that any error in restraining Bohls’ counsel from making objections was harmless. It is clear from the record that Bohls’ attorney wanted to make objections himself rather than through Voges’ attorney, but was prevented from doing so by the trial court. Nothing in the record, however, reflects any particular objection he would have made but was prevented from making, what testimony or evidence was admitted because he was prevented from objecting, or how any such testimony or evidence was harmful to Bohls. In fact, in his brief and during oral argument, Bohls did not argue that any particular harmful testimony or evidence was admitted. Instead, he argued that, because Voges’ attorney was making objections for all defendants, the jury was given the impression that Bohls was, in some manner, aligned with Voges. In spite of his assertion, there is nothing in the record from which we can conclude that the jury was given such an impression or, if they were, that it was harmful to Bohls. Without a showing of harm, the error is not reversible.