Court Opinion

ID: 9684776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:11:34.731775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:59.515670
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
concurring.
I totally agree that this cause should be reversed for the reasons stated by Judge *806Davis in his majority opinion. I write only because there may be another trial and the additional reversible errors I have found may be revived on a second trial.
I will not elaborate, but will simply state that in my view the State and the trial court committed reversible error when the trial court permitted the prosecutor to question the appellant’s daughter concerning hearsay information that the appellant had implicitly, approximately 4 years prior to the date of the incident in question, sexually molested the daughter. By this record, and in my view, the questions asked, standing alone, constitute reversible error. See Fentis v. State, 528 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Tippins v. State, 530 S.W.2d 110, 111 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Mounts v. State, 185 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1945); Sensabaugh v. State, 426 S.W.2d 224, 227 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Lamm v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 560, 252 S.W. 535 (1923).
I also find that the State and the trial judge committed reversible error when the trial judge permitted the prosecutor to elicit hearsay and remote testimony from the witness Hunt. See Roman v. State, 503 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
I,therefore, strongly suggest, in the event of a retrial, that the prosecutor handling this cause closely examine the record of appeal in this cause in order that the same errors that occurred in this cause will not reoccur.