Court Opinion

ID: 9765963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:26:56.399953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:17.557334
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
McDonald, judge.
The appellant takes us to task for the statement in our original opinion that:
.“Other than portions of the stolen safe, no property found and seized as a result of the search was admitted in evidence at the trial.”
We acknowledge that three photographs and a note were seized and introduced over objection that they were “wholly irrelevant to anything,” but we fail to see how this could affect the outcome of our decision in this case.
Complaint is next made of certain testimony of Officer Victor, in connection with these exhibits. However, prior to this, the same witness was allowed to testify, without objection, to substantially the same facts. “Where the same or similar testimony is admitted without objection, the admission of improper evidence does not call for reversal.” Lowrey v. State, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 241, 290 S.W.2d 532; Duhart v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 150, 319 S.W.2d 109; Davis v. State, 168 Tex.Cr.R. 588, 330 S.W.2d 443.
Appellant, for the first time, complains of the trial court’s refusal to allow the impeachment of the witness Victor. Counsel for appellant asked the witness several questions concerning his testimony at a previous trial. The witness could not remember such questions being asked, or the answers he had given. Appellant then requested that the .court reporter be allowed to take the stand to read that portion of the testimony taken at the prior trial. The State obj ected, unless the entire record was introduced, and *939the court appears to have sustained the objection.
There was no showing in the statement of facts of what the testimony would have been, and thus no informal bill of exception is presented for review. Skinner v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 364 S.W.2d 700.
Appellant prepared his formal bill of exception by merely quoting from the prior statement of facts certain portions of the witnesses’ testimony. The trial judge refused his bill, and the appellant was notified of this, but took no further action. Therefore, the formal bill of exception cannot be considered. Article 760d, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; Beale v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 350 S.W.2d 207; Skinner v. State, supra.
Appellant’s other contentions were fully answered in the original opinion, and further comment is not necessary.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.