Court Opinion

ID: 5080817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 12:22:52.69259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:21:32.142372
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent to the majority's disposition of the extraneous offense point of error. I believe the introduction was error, see Huggins v. State, 795 S.W.2d 909
(Tex.App. — Beaumont 1990, pet. ref'd) (concurring opinion) and I cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence made no contribution to an assessment of the punishment, see Hunter v. State, 805 S.W.2d 918
(Tex.App. — Beaumont 1991, pet. granted) (dissenting opinion). Furthermore, I believe Judge Onion's analysis of TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 37.07 Sec. 3(a) (Vernon Supp. 1992) in Grunsfeld v. State, 813 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1991, pet. granted), is well reasoned and correct. See also Slott v. State, 824 S.W.2d 225
(Tex.App. — Beaumont 1992, pet. filed). Since the majority feels otherwise, I respectfully dissent.