Court Opinion

ID: 9675624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:59:20.302716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.998837
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant strenuously takes us to task for the holding in our original opinion that his objection to the testimony of the State’s witness Marilyn Harraman came too late, and insists that the objection was timely made.
Upon a re-examination of the record we remain convinced that the witness was permitted to testify to practically all the events which she observed before a proper objection was made, and further find that at the close of her testimony when the court was made to understand fully the nature of appellant’s complaint, he instructed the jury specifically not to consider the *606girl’s testimony about the offer of money .and the invitation to take a ride and to disregard the same and consider it for no purpose in the case. Such instruction, in ■our opinion, was sufficient to cure any error in admitting the witness’s testimony. Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 310, and authorities there cited.
Remaining convinced that a proper disposition was made of the case on original submission, the motion for rehearing is overruled.