Court Opinion

ID: 9682349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:09:47.702127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:55.842503
License: Public Domain

WHITHAM, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I agree that the individual who testified was a character, not a reputation witness. However, I cannot agree that the witness’ testimony on direct was so broad as to permit impeachment with “have you heard” questions. Livingston v. State, 589 S.W.2d 395, 402 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (en banc). Consequently, Rawlings was not a reputation witness by his interrogation on direct examination and the State should not have been permitted to have asked “have you heard” questions. Penagraph v. State, 623 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex.Crim.App.1981).
Accordingly, I would sustain appellant’s first ground of error and reverse and remand.