Court Opinion

ID: 9760281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:46:13.068534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:10.383043
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
DICE, Judge.
In our opinion on original submission we held that in view of the appellant’s testimony on direct examination that he had never sold or used marijuana the testimony given by Officer Martinez on rebuttal that as a result of his other meetings with appellant a warrant had been issued for appellant’s arrest was admissible. In- such holding we were in error as evidence of the issuance of a warrant for -appellant’s, arrest would not constitute proof that he had sold- or used marijuana. In refuting appellant’s claim that he had never sold or used marijuana and for the purpose of impeaching him it was incumbent upon the state to show by competent evidence that he in fact did sell or use marijuana or that he had admitted having done so. The fact that he had been charged with the commission of an offense was not admissible for the purpose of impeachment under the pror visions of Art. 732a, V.A.C.C.P. unless the appellant had been finally convicted for such offense.
While the testimony of Officer Martinez was subject to the objection that it was not shown that appellant had been finally convicted for such other offense the record reflects that appellant made no objection to the testimony on that ground but objected only on the ground “that the State is trying to prove up some other offense other than the particular crime in which the defendant is charged.” Under the record and authorities. *506cited in our original opinion evidence was admissible to show that appellant had sold or used marijuana for the purpose of impeaching him even though it did show that he had committed another offense. In the absence of a proper objection to the testimony, no reversible error is shown. Miller v. State, 166 Texas Cr. Rep. 43, 310 S.W. 2d 337.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the Court.