Court Opinion

ID: 9642225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:52:34.881884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:44.772809
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the holding of the majority that the failure of the trial court to include an instruction on the statutory definition of “in the course of committing theft” does not constitute fundamental error. However, the majority goes further and, via dicta, says that “[although error could result where the common meaning is more expansive than the statutory definition, such is not the case with the phrase ‘in the course of committing theft.’ ” The exclusion of abstract definitions in the court’s charge has not been recognized as one of the “fundamental errors” which can arise from the charge of the court. See Cumbie v. State, 578 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Absent an objection, such an omission is not reversible error.
CAMPBELL, J., joins in this concurrence.