Court Opinion

ID: 9684393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:55:24.86215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:55.441785
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority now reverses this conviction because Officer Sewell was allowed to bolster the in-court identification of witnesses Moore and Ray with testimony of a previous identification from a photographic display. Although I agree that this testimony was erroneously admitted, I remain convinced that our original disposition was correct.
Officer Sewell stated four times without objection that Moore and Ray had been able to make an identification, of three men from nine photographs. Counsel objected only to testimony developing the circumstances and details of the identification. The objection was on the basis of the pictures as being the best evidence, and counsel stated, “We object to any testimony unless the pictures are shown in the courtroom”. Clearly this objection is not the same as the bolstering objection urged on appeal and nothing is presented for review. Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 521 S.W.2d 636; Arivette v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 513 S.W.2d 857. Furthermore, failure to object at any time to testimony that a prior identi*613fication was made by Moore and Ray waived any error.
I respectfully dissent to the reversal.
DOUGLAS, J., joins in this dissent.