Court Opinion

ID: 9653005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:36:52.285095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.776899
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s judgment. I write only to note I would sustain point of error one and reverse on that point also.1 My colleague holds the evidence of the aggravated robbery was admissible to negate the claim of accident and to establish motive. As noted, the issue first surfaced when Booker denied ownership of the gun. It was uncon-troverted that Booker was holding the gun and the gun discharged. Booker’s claim that the gun discharged accidently went to the issue of whether he intentionally fired at Officer Bailey. The ownership of the gun is irrelevant to that issue. The State was still concerned about the gun’s ownership when the prosecutor asked about Booker going into a house and robbing two ladies at gunpoint. Booker denied the robbery. The State was then allowed to bring one of the ladies to testify Booker had entered her home and robbed her. The State offered the evidence solely to impeach Booker’s credibility, that he was “not telling the truth at all.” The state never indicated the evidence was offered for anything other than impeachment, certainly not to show motive. Tex. R.CRIM. Evid. 608(b) states specific instance of conduct, for the purpose of attacking credibility, other than conviction of a crime, may not be inquired into on cross-examination. Therefore, in my view, the trial court erred in allowing the robbery victim to testify in rebuttal. The judgment having been reversed and remanded, I concur.

. Ordinarily it would be more judicious to refrain from comment. However, since this case is to be remanded, the issue may possibly arise in the retrial and the trial judge is entitled to know the position of each member of the court on each issue.