Court Opinion

ID: 9748209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:55:06.130947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:32.755485
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
I concur' in the judgment of this Court, but not its reasoning. It is permissible to argue to the jury that the defendant did not present witnesses to contradict testimony offered by the state. It is not permissible to select a potential, but uncalled, witness such as Dr. Benjamin, tout his knowledge, experience, and standing among his colleagues and then argue, solely because the defendant did not call him as a witness (a circumstance that could have many causes), that even that eminent scholar did not dispute the state’s evidence. Such tactics constitute bolstering of the testimony of the state’s witnesses. The trial court erred in admitting such testimony and in failing to curtail the state’s argument about it. The court of appeals was correct in finding error and that the error was statutory and harmless. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b). I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and its reasoning.