Court Opinion

ID: 9674110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:23:13.041783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:25.617106
License: Public Domain

ON STATE’S motion for rehearing
DAVIDSON, Judge.
Counsel for the state presses upon us their contention that we erred in our conclusion that the Glenn case, supra, controlled the disposition of this case.
It is insisted that the case of Pilot v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 515, 43 S. W. 1024, which was not discussed in our original opinion, is here controlling and should be followed.
*223In the light of that contention, we analyze the holding in the two cases:
The Glenn case holds that in order for the extraneous offenses to be admissible it must be shown that the accused was guilty of those extraneous offenses. The language of the opinion makes clear that holding wherein it is said:
“But in every case where such extraneous crimes are admissible there must be pertinent testimony tending to show that appellant was guilty of the extraneous offense.”
There being no evidence showing that the accused in the Glenn case was guilty of the extraneous crimes, and proof of such crimes not being otherwise shown to be admissible, a reversal of the conviction was required.
The Pilot case holds that proof of extraneous crimes which do “not tend in the remotest degree to implicate any particular person” or point to any “particular individual” would not warrant a reversal of the conviction, especially when proof of such crimes tended to be material to the state’s case.
It appears that the two holdings are in conflict. An examination, however, reveals to the contrary. The Glenn case is predicated upon the admissibility of the testimony showing the extraneous offenses; the Pilot case is not. In the latter case, the testimony showing the extraneous offenses was received in evidence without objection. The admissibility of the testimony was not before the court. The question which the court was there deciding was that of the propriety of a charge limiting before the jury the effect of the testimony relative to the prior offenses which the court held not to be necessary. Obviously, the admissibility of the testimony was not before the court, and that question was not decided.
As between the two cases, we are constrained to conclude that the Pilot case is not authority for overruling the holding announced by the Glenn case, which has been subsequently followed by the decisions of this court.
We remain convinced that the case was correctly disposed of originally.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.