Court Opinion

ID: 9647274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:29:35.323133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:47.481461
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority reverses these convictions because of an unanswered question and one answered favorably to appellant.
The State was no doubt asking questions of appellant to ascertain if he were the person with the same name who shot and killed an officer in Houston. The record reflects that the questions were asked in good faith. The State was not able to connect the appellant by his testimony with the shooting. Appellant answered that he was not the person who shot the officer in *594Houston. If the State could have shown that appellant shot the officer in Houston it would have been admissible under previous decisions of this Court. See Albrecht v. State, 486 S.W.2d 97 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).
The intent to defend himself was an issue made by appellant’s own testimony. He related that he shot at the men in self-defense not knowing that they were officers. If he, without provocation, shot another officer, proof of such an incident would go to his intent and would be admissible to disprove his theory of self-defense.
In Albrecht v. State, supra, this Court noted several instances where extraneous offenses could be admissible. One of the examples given was that they could be introduced to disprove a defensive issue. See Lolmaugh v. State, 514 S.W.2d 758 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), where evidence of shooting another person was held admissible to disprove the defensive issue of self-defense.
Also, in the present record there was some evidence that appellant was a black muslim. There was an attempt to show that muslims hated police officers. Evidence of the other shooting, if the State could have developed it, would have been admissible to show bias and hatred toward a class — police officers. See Dillard v. State, 477 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
The question asked about the indictment was unanswered. The judge instructed the jury not to consider it. This Court rarely reverses a case because of unanswered questions. See Mirowitz v. State, 449 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), and Gleffe v. State, 509 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
Appellant answered the other question that he was not the person who shot the officer. In the context appellant was not harmed by the questions.
The majority asserts that the court’s charge compounded an error. There was no objection to the court’s charge. There was evidence before the jury that he had been convicted for other offenses.
No reversible error has been shown. The judgments should be affirmed.