Court Opinion

ID: 9622513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:19:07.109739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:17.937498
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting on rehearing.
For the reasons stated in my original dissenting opinion, I would grant the State’s motion for rehearing. Because the majority denies the State’s motion for rehearing, I respectfully dissent.
I concur only in the result of the majority’s decision to deny Thrift’s motion for rehearing. I disagree, however, with the majority’s decision to discuss and the discussion of the “prejudicial spillover” effect of the admitted evidence on the sexual assault conviction. First, I still believe there was no error in admitting the photographs. Second, Thrift did not argue in his initial brief that due to “prejudicial spillover,” the admission of the photographs affected the conviction for sexual assault. Thrift may not have the burden to establish he was harmed by trial court error,1 but a complaint about the effect of evidence that is specifically limited to one *484offense and not to be considered for another offense is a separate issue. Even the trial court made separate rulings regarding the effect of the evidence on the two offenses. Thrift did not ask us to decide this issue until rehearing. I do not know of any issue, but one effecting jurisdiction, that we must raise for him.
I would not address his complaint on rehearing. Because the majority addresses it, I concur only in the result reached by the majority on Thrift’s motion for rehearing.

. See Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).