Court Opinion

ID: 9729372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:33:12.662887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:57.324926
License: Public Domain

J. HARVEY HUDSON, Justice,
concurring.
The State’s use of hearsay to affirmatively link appellant to possession of the marijuana found in her home was improper. Further, the error presented here rises to the level of “constitutional error.”1 However, one of the factors cited in Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) and relied on by the majority in assessing the degree of harm, would convert Rule 44.2(a) into a punitive instrument for controlling wayward prosecutors. I believe it is the function of this court to decide each case upon its own merits. To speculate upon whether our decision will encourage prosecutors to knowingly inject error into future cases not only insults the many fine people who serve and represent the State of Texas, it improperly requires us to look outside the merits of the case sub judice.
Looking solely at the record before us, I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction. Accordingly, I concur in the result.

. But see Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (applying Rule 44.2(b), rather than Rule 44.2(a) to the erroneous admission of hearsay); Armstead v. State, 977 S.W.2d 791, 796 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. ref'd).