Court Opinion

ID: 9648235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:10:57.490053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:44.406482
License: Public Domain

COHEN, Justice,
concurring.
I concur only to point out that in Anderson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 900 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no pet.), the harm was patently obvious. Before the judge in Anderson made the defendant testify to incriminating facts, the judge had stated that he was going to find the enhancement paragraph not true. Id. at 905. After the judge erroneously forced the defendant to testify over objection to incriminating facts, the judge then found the enhancement paragraph true. Id. By anybody’s definition, that is harm. That is undoubtedly also the reason that there was no harm “analysis” in Anderson—no “analysis” was needed.