Court Opinion

ID: 9681101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:44:07.77546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.281450
License: Public Domain

LAGARDE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
(July 5, 1989)
I concur in the result reached by Justice Whittington in cause number 05-88-00974-CR; however, I dissent as to the results in cause numbers 05-88-00975-CR and 05-88-00976-CR. I conclude that it is a reasonable deduction from the evidence that all the property found in Christopher’s pos*463session was deposited by Officer Allen with Detective Bird; that Bird thereafter called the other two complainants, just as he called Moore, and that those complainants likewise retrieved their property from Detective Bird. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that the State was required to meet the test set out in Nichols v. State, 479 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex.Crim.App.1972), I conclude that the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Christopher guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis raised by the evidence. I would affirm in all three cases.