Court Opinion

ID: 9777128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:59:38.634384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:49.128043
License: Public Domain

*768DOUGLAS, Judge,
concurring opinion on appellant’s motion for rehearing.
A majority now holds that when appellant took the stand to establish a defense of entrapment his testimony that he possessed the marihuana could not be used against him.
What the majority overlooks is that for there to be the defense of entrapment necessarily assumes that the act was committed. Canales v. State, 496 S.W.2d 614 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). If no offense was committed, an accused would not have been entrapped in doing anything. The accused cannot deny the commission of an offense and then claim entrapment. Stephens v. State, 522 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Zamora v. State, 508 S.W.2d 819 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Canales v. States, supra; Guerrero v. State, 487 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Godin v. State, 441 S.W.2d 196 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). When he admits the offense was committed, the question of the search goes out of the case.
When we get to the point where an accused takes the stand and admits the offense and then permit him to question the proof of the offense, we are going too far. If an accused thinks error was committed in admitting evidence obtained as a result of an arrest or search, he can appeal.
I concur for different reasons that appellant’s motion for rehearing should be overruled.