Court Opinion

ID: 9673161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:07:28.917963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.461841
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DOUGLAS, Judge.
On original submission, the panel held that informing the jury that the sentences *321would run concurrently, when they did in fact run concurrently, was fundamental error. This conflicts with our holding in a long line of cases which were recently summarized in Daniels v. State, 527 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). The panel also held that after a witness testified to facts which were indicative of appellant’s good character, the State could not cross-examine her with “have you heard” questions concerning appellant’s reputation. This conflicts with our holding in Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).
We grant the State’s motion for rehearing and affirm- the convictions. Daniels and Childs were well reasoned and sound opinions; we will follow them.
The panel held that it was fundamental error to charge the jury that the sentences they set would run concurrently because, even though the sentences did run concurrently, such a charge was calculated to injure the rights of appellant. In Daniels, we condensed our prior law into a simple rule:
“[T]he rule is well established that the submission of an incorrect charge on punishment does not require reversal of the judgment unless harm or prejudice is shown.”
In the instant case, the court told the jury that the sentences would run concurrently. This was an incorrect statement; the court had the power to run the sentences either concurrently or consecutively. Appellant made no effort to inform the court that this was a misstatement of the law. The sentences ultimately did run concurrently. Appellant has not made any effort to develop evidence that indicates actual harm. Since the sentences did run concurrently we cannot see how appellant was harmed. In the absence of harm, no reversible error is shown.
The panel also held that, after appellant’s mother testified about appellant’s changed attitude and his lack of recent involvement with drugs, she was not a character witness and was not subject to cross-examination with “have you heard” questions. In Childs v. State, 491 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the father of the defendant was asked, “And has his conduct been good since he has been there while he has been there at home?” He answered: “Really has.” The Court stated:
“Appellant may not have a witness testify about his good character traits but avoid ‘placing his reputation in evidence’ simply by not specifically asking whether appellant enjoyed a good reputation in the community. The Court did not err in permitting the cross-examination.”
We then held that it was proper for the prosecutor to ask if the witness had heard of an act inconsistent with Childs’ good reputation.
In the instant case, appellant’s mother testified to specific acts of good conduct. The prosecutor then cross-examined her concerning whether she had heard of acts inconsistent with appellant having a good reputation. The logic of Childs applies with full force. The relevant facts are the same. Appellant’s mother testified to specific acts of good conduct; she was a character witness. Even though she did not specifically testify to “reputation”, her testimony had the same effect as if she had. The prosecutor properly asked her “have you heard” questions.
There is no reversible error. The judgments are affirmed.
TOM DAVIS and DALLY, JJ., concur in the result.
ONION, P. J., ROBERTS, PHILLIPS and CLINTON, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the original opinion.
Before the court en banc.