Court Opinion

ID: 9679043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:39:09.595796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.847069
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting).
In this case the appellant timely and properly contended in his brief filed in the trial court that the evidence was insufficient to support an affirmative answer to the second special issue submitted at the punishment stage of this capital murder trial. See Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655, p. 663 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) (opinion of Roberts, J.), delivered this day.
I would sustain this contention and reverse, for two reasons: First, the evidence that the murder in fact took place in the course of a robbery is extremely weak. Lamberson v. State, 509 S.W.2d 328 (Tex. Cr.App.1974).1 Second, the psychiatric testimony is not sufficient to support an affirmative answer to the second special issue, for the reasons stated in part III of my dissenting opinion in Livingston v. State, supra.
The judgment should be reversed.

. I also believe that Lamberson requires a finding that this murder did not take place in the course of a robbery, and I would so hold.