Court Opinion

ID: 9678399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:18:41.5128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:04.095951
License: Public Domain

CLINTON, Judge,
concurring.
The opinion of the Court indicates the gravamen of objections made by appellant to the toxicologist testifying as to his opinion about identity of the substances in question is that “the chemist [lacked] personal knowledge of making the test, himself.” Maj. opinion at 28. In my judgment the trial judge had no choice but to overrule that objection, and the court of appeals was remiss in addressing, much more deciding, points of error complaining of “inadmissible hearsay.” Aguilar v. State, 850 S.W.2d 640, at 641 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993).1
Although the Court quickly notices that “appellant’s objection does not seem to invoke the hearsay rule,” it is willing to conjure that the court of appeals “must have assumed that these objections were based on [Rule 802].” Maj. opinion, at 28, n. 2. Moreover, from similarity between language of the objections and the text in Rule 602, the Court graciously surmises that appellant had in mind the latter rule, but then points out that “[Rule 602] is not the same as the hearsay rule and, in particular is not subject to the hearsay exceptions of Rule 803.” Ibid.
Given these premises, contrary to the majority, I would not “accept” for any purpose that “appellant’s objection was sufficient to apprise the trial judge of his reliance on Rule 802.” Ibid. Instead of creating a facade to mask a faulty presentation of what we may deem a significant question, we should, just like the majority is so want to do in other instances, dismiss the petitions as improvidently granted.
That failing, because the court of appeals also “reached out” to decide questions not properly preserved for appellate consideration, I join only the judgment of the Court.
BAIRD and OVERSTREET, JJ., join in this opinion.

. All emphasis throughout this opinion is mine unless otherwise indicated. References to a "Rule” are to Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.