Court Opinion

ID: 9654691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:47:26.208314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:12.618739
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority states that the error in allowing the State to present evidence of harassing calls made by Gillis’s family to the complainant was harmless error.
Error in the admission of evidence is not harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction. Johnson v. State, 660 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Clemons v. State, 605 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
In this case, the question of identification was hotly contested. The complainant identified Gillis as her assailant, expressing no doubt or hesitancy about the identification. She had not known Gillis prior to this incident and her identification was based on a view lasting five or ten seconds in dim light. There was no other evidence tending to connect Gillis with the attack on the complainant, except that other participants in the offense called the attacker “James”. Gillis presented several witnesses who testified that all of his friends called him “Bud” or “Bug” and never referred to him as “James”. It was stipulated that fingerprints found at the scene were not those of Gillis. Gillis and two companions testified that he was elsewhere at the time of the attack. His mother corroborated their story to the extent of her personal knowledge.
Although there was no testimony showing Gillis was responsible for the telephone calls, the nature of the calls would tend to evoke sympathy for the complainant and negative feelings toward the Gillis family. In view of the closely contested nature of the trial, I would hold that there is at least a reasonable possibility that the admission of the harassing phone calls might have contributed to Gillis’s conviction.
I would sustain Gillis’s first ground of error and reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.