Court Opinion

ID: 9767871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:31:17.602327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:34.071654
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
The opinion of Presiding Judge Onion on the State’s second motion for rehearing cites the rule that “[h]e does not waive the error if he offers ‘testimony to rebut, destroy, or explain’ the improperly admitted evidence.”
Much has been written about the rule, but the question is, did the testimony of appellant rebut, destroy or explain such evidence originally offered in the confession ? The statement in the confession was, "I always carry a pistol with me because I shot and killed a man in Lubbock not too long ago and I am afraid of his people.”
The testimony of the appellant does not explain, rebut or destroy this statement. It is merely a repetition of the statement in the confession and does not in anyway apply to the rule cited.
What happens to the waiver rule in hundreds of cases including Baity v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 455 S.W.2d 305, where this Court wrote: “Appellant cannot complain of the improper admission of testimony which he later voluntarily offers himself and expounds upon. Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857.” See Texas Digest, Criminal Law, 1169(3), and Creel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 493 S.W.2d 814.
For the reason stated, the motion for rehearing should be granted.