Court Opinion

ID: 9776777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:44:35.898459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:42.478093
License: Public Domain

TEAGUE, Judge,
concurring.
For the reasons set forth in my dissent on the denial of appellant’s motion for rehearing in Pearson v. State, 587 S.W.2d 393, 396 (Tex.Crim.App.1979), I would apply Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), retroactively. Thus I do not agree that the search in this case was lawful. The three cases relied upon by the majority to uphold the search in this case do not state the correct law and should be overruled.1
I concur in the result, however, because the improper admission in evidence of the fishing rod handle was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). There was ample evidence of appellant’s guilt, and appellant confessed that he spanked his daughter Christine with a fishing rod.
Before the court en banc.

. The cases are Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); Corbett v. State, 493 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Crim.App.1973), and Tocher v. State, 501 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.Crim.App.1973).