Court Opinion

ID: 9761338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:39:15.4008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:22.384061
License: Public Domain

ONION, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached. The error here is clearly recognized but held not reversible error. I would go further and limit this holding to the facts here presented.
Otherwise, as appellant’s able counsel has pointed out, the legislative intent expressed in Article 38.29, V.A.C.C.P., will be easily thwarted. If a question in violation of such statute is asked and answered without objection, this Court on appeal would hold that no error appears. If such question is asked and the defendant forced to object in presence of the jury, then the prosecutor may withdraw such question citing this case (Salazar v. State) as authority to show the absence of reversible error. Forcing such objection in the jury’s presence could only be helpful to the prosecution and harmful to the accused. In fact, such objection may be more harmful to the accused than any answer or explanation extracted from the defendant on the stand. While I cannot imagine a prosecutor deliberately following such procedure unless acting in bad faith, it should be made clear that this case is not authority for him to do so.