Court Opinion

ID: 9769556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:54:24.009056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:05.102819
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that it was error to ask Walter Moore, Sr., the “did you know — have you heard” reputation question; I also agree that the error was not reversible.
However, I reach this result by a different route than that of the majority. The *78majority holds in effect that such a question is generally not reversible error, but may be such in rare cases. In fact, the rule is to the contrary.
In Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 823 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), we discussed “have you heard” questions and unanimously stated that:
“Indeed, the mere asking of an improperly framed question asserting as a matter of fact that the defendant committed a specific act of misconduct is reversible error.” Id., at 828, citing, Webber v. State, 472 S.W.2d 136 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
The more reasonable view concerning improperly framed “have you heard” questions is that of Wharton v. State, 157 Tex. Cr.R. 326, 248 S.W.2d 739 (1952):
“Some may be harmless and some may be made harmless by a negative answer, but whenever the question is so stated that it amounts to an assertion of a fact under the conditions here under discussion and it implies the commission of another offense, it may be said that its harmfulness cannot be cured by the answer and seldom by any instruction which the court is able to give the jury.” (Emphasis included) Wharton, supra, at 740, quoting, McNaulty v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 317, 135 S.W.2d 987, 988-989.
In Carey v. State, 537 S.W.2d 757, 759 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) I concurred in the overruling of the following language from Paraseo v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 89, 323 S.W.2d 257, 259 (1959):
“Whenever a question is asked which amounts to an assertion of fact and implies the commission of another offense, its harmfulness cannot be cured by the answer or failure to answer, or by any instruction which the court may give, and reversible error is reflected thereby.”
I felt that such language was too broad and that in Parasco the instruction was sufficient to cure the improper question. Carey involved one of the “seldom” instances, see Wharton, supra, where an instruction cured the error of the mere asking of an improper question which implied the commission of another offense. I adhered to the rule of Wharton, supra, and McNaulty, supra, in Carey and I still adhere to it.
I would hold that the question asked of the witness here was one of those “exceptional cases [in which] an instruction to disregard can cure the error.” Carey, supra, 537 S.W.2d at 759 (concurring opinion).
ODOM, J., joins in this concurrence.