Court Opinion

ID: 9674836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:36:19.31557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:29.924343
License: Public Domain

*178OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant contends that we erred in failing to make an independent evaluation of whether “Barbara Broadcast” is obscene. He cites Andrews v. State, 652 S.W.2d 370 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Longoria v. State, 479 S.W.2d 689 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Hunt v. State, 475 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), as authority for the proposition that notwithstanding a jury verdict finding certain material to be obscene, an appellate court must always reconsider the material.
In Davis v. State, 658 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), the most recent pronouncement of the Court of Criminal Appeals on this issue, the court stated:
(a)ppellate review of what is alleged to be obscene material comes into play only if there is an issue raised in the trial court or the appellate court that the material is not obscene, either factually or constitutionally.
Id. at 582 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
Appellant has not made an issue of the sufficiency of the evidence in this court, either in his grounds of error or in his motion for rehearing. He merely asserts that we are, in all instances, obliged to make an independent determination of whether the material is obscene. We disagree, and under the authority of Davis v. State, we decline to do so.
Motion for rehearing overruled.