Court Opinion

ID: 9759316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:12:08.728797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:01.160413
License: Public Domain

OPINION CONCURRING TO DENIAL OF APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MILLER, Judge,
concurring.
Germane to the second ground raised in this motion for rehearing, appellant is correct when he states Kinnamon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), was wrongly decided in light of Alvardo v. State, 704 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), Kelly v. State, 748 S.W.2d 236 (Tex.Cr. App.1988), and Haggins v. State, 785 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). However, there was no objection and there was some limiting instruction in the court’s charge (e.g. intentionally caused the death). Thus, there was no egregious harm under Al-manza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr. App.1984) (Opinion on State’s Motion for Rehearing), and the correct result was reached. With these comments, I concur in the denial of appellant’s motion for rehearing.
McCORMICK, P.J., and CAMPBELL and WHITE, JJ., join.
BAIRD, J., not participating.