Court Opinion

ID: 9779269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:42:02.885197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.580761
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the results reached by the majority and agree that no reversible error is shown. I must, however, take issue with one of the alternative reasons given for disposing of appellant’s first two grounds of error.
The majority hold that since appellant testified on direct examination that he explained his possession of the spreads to the officer at the time he was apprehended, and that the officer was not satisfied with his explanation, he could not complain that on cross-examination he was required to go into the contents of the conversation, citing Hayles v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 507 S. W.2d 213 and Moulton v. State, Tex.Cr. App., 486 S.W.2d 334. The rule relied on in those cases, however, was fully discussed in Nicholas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 169, 173 (opinion on motion for rehearing), and is not applicable here. The rule is that when other evidence of substantially the same facts is in the record without objection, erroneous admission over objection is rendered harmless. Obviously, evidence that there was a conversation is not of substantially the same facts as the contents of the conversation. I therefore dissent from the majority’s reliance upon this rule.
The majority’s alternative ground, however, is sufficient. Appellant’s objection was too general to preserve error, so nothing is presented for review.
Accordingly, I concur in the results reached by the majority.
ONION, P. J., joins in this opinion.