Court Opinion

ID: 9761691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:50:40.659968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:21:05.654889
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the reversal of this cause. In my concurring opinion in Henriksen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 491, at page 497, I said:
“Though not without difficulty, I have concluded that the above similarities are sufficient . . . ”
In that case the similarities were “a peculiar trait” of bringing a paper bag into a supermarket, where paper bags are readily available, and wearing a cap and sun glasses.
The only similarities between the primary offense and the extraneous offense in the instant case are those set forth in footnote one of the dissenting opinion.
Under our holding in Ford, supra, I cannot conclude that these similarities are sufficient.