Court Opinion

ID: 9779211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:40:19.095381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:23.559898
License: Public Domain

MURPHY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur. With respect to appellant’s first point of error, I would reach the same result as the majority but for a different reason. I do not believe that this point of error requires a Bell analysis. Bell v. State, 693 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Appellant did not testify in his behalf, but called Rogers Lee and Harry James McLaughlin, Jr., both of whom testified that they were back seat passengers in the automobile being driven by Fredro Love. Each testified that Love and not appellant did the shooting. I would hold when an *404accused denies the commission of the offense charged, or presents evidence that another committed it, he is not entitled to a charge on a lesser included offense. See Hackbarth v. State, 617 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1981), and Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).