Court Opinion

ID: 9767957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:36:36.566273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:35.079879
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the Court’s opinion which holds that the evidence of photographic identification was admissible over the objection that it bolstered the testimony of the State’s identification witness. However, had the appellant objected to the hearsay nature of the testimony, a different situation might have been presented. See Haughton v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 42, 267 S.W. 715 (1925); and compare State v. Zaragosa, 6 Ariz.App. 80, 430 P.2d 426 (1967).