Court Opinion

ID: 9779510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 22:04:28.256336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:23.184072
License: Public Domain

STEPHANOW, Justice,
dissenting.
I would overrule appellant’s fourth point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant argues that the following exchange constituted an erroneous admission of evidence of an extraneous offense:
[PROSECUTOR]: What time did you go to bed that evening?
[APPELLANT]: Of the offense?
[PROSECUTOR]: Yeah.
[APPELLANT]: I don’t know, 11:00 or 12:00 o’clock.
[PROSECUTOR]: Have you left anything out, Mr. Tate, as to when you went after you left your grand parent’s house and the grocery store?
[APPELLANT]: No, sir.
[PROSECUTOR]: Didn’t your father and you go on a lone mission to score happiness.
[APPELLANT]: No, sir.
[PROSECUTOR]: Isn’t it a fact that you went and scored some heroin with your father after this offense?
[MR. SECREST]: (Defense Counsel) Your Honor, I object to that. May we approach the bench?
Error in asking an improper question may generally be cured or rendered harmless by a withdrawal of such testimony and an instruction to disregard the same, except in extreme cases where it appears that the evidence is clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury and is of such character as to suggest the impossibility of withdrawing the impression produced upon their minds. Davis v. State, 645 S.W.2d 817, 818 (Tex.Crim.App.1983); Thompson v. State, 612 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
Specifically, testimony referring to or implying an extraneous offense allegedly committed by a defendant may be rendered harmless by an instruction to disregard in all but the most extreme situations. Aliff v. State, 627 S.W.2d 166, 172 (Tex.Crim.*683App.1982); Campos v. State, 589 S.W.2d 424, 428 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Gilmore v. State, 666 S.W.2d 136, 150 (Tex.App.— Amarillo 1983, pet. ref'd). In determining whether a jury instruction is sufficient to cure the error, the facts of each particular case must be noted. Gonzales v. State, 685 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex.Crim.App.1985).
In the instant case, the prosecution’s improper question was never answered, and the trial court promptly sustained appellant’s objection and instructed the jury, in the strongest terms, to disregard the evidence and not to consider it for any purpose. No further evidence concerning the extraneous offense was elicited.
I cannot conclude that, given the circumstances, the question was of such character that the court’s instruction could not withdraw any adverse impression made upon the jury. I would overrule appellant’s fourth point of error and sustain the conviction.