Court Opinion

ID: 9767869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:31:17.593597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:33.615678
License: Public Domain

DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
The State’s motion for rehearing should be granted and the conviction affirmed.
The same evidence came in without objection during the cross-examination of the appellant. The appellant testified that the statements in the confession were true.
The appellant testified that his rights were explained to him and that he cooperated with the officers and gave them a confession. He testified that he and three girls went into the bar where the homicide took place. He was asked by his attorney:
“Q. All right, in this statement here, you have said you always carry a pistol with you. And, I gather that you — you also said you took it from under the seat of the car, and took it into that bar with you, is that correct ?”
He answered, “Correct.” He testified that he tried to renew an acquaintance with a man in the bar, but the man apparently did not recognize appellant and began cursing him and then the shooting occurred.
On cross-examination of the appellant by the district attorney, the following occurred :
“Q. All right. Was the reason that you carried a gun with you when you went down to the Montanez Bar, the reason you stated in that confession ?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. All right. Were you afraid when you left Lubbock that some of those people might be here ?
“A. The reason I came to Midland was because I was afraid over there.
“Q. Well, are you normally afraid when you go into a bar ?
“A. Not over here.
“Q. All right. Why did you bring your gun with you over here ?
“A. Because I couldn’t take that woman —them other women to my house and leave the gun home.”
In Rivera v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 437 S.W.2d 855 (1969), the conviction was for murder. A State’s witness testified over objection that the deceased had a wife and two children. Other testimony to the same effect was introduced without objection. The Court held the error harmless.
In Berry v. State, 477 S.W.2d 284 (1972), this Court held error to be harmless where inadmissible testimony was ad*498mitted over objection but the witness was later allowed without objection to testify to substantially the same facts. In that case an officer testified concerning Berry that they had been observing him because they were under the impression that he had been involved in several things.
In Ramirez v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 494, 335 S.W.2d 228 (1960), by Judge Davidson, complaint was made that the court erred in permitting the State to prove his connection with another and subsequent robbery. Ramirez went into and developed the testimony to which he had objected. The Court held the error harmless.
In Butler v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 529. 352 S.W.2d 744, this Court held that no error was shown when testimony of prior arrests was adduced when the accused testified on redirect regarding prior offenses. See Garza v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 693. See Texas Digest, Criminal Law, for many other cases. See also 5 Tex.Jur.2d, Sections 444-447, page 697 et seq.
In Robbins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 481 S.W.2d 419 (1972), opinion by Judge Morrison, it is written:
“Appellant’s second ground of error is that the court permitted the State to question the undercover agent concerning an unrelated extraneous offense involving the sale of additional pills which occurred the following day at the truck stop and in which appellant allegedly participated. The record reflects that the appellant, himself, testified about the events surrounding the second transaction and gave his version of them. The general rule is that an accused may not complain about the admission of testimony when he later testifies on direct examination to substantially the same facts. Cook v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 409 S.W.2d 857; Meadowes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 368 S.W.2d 203.”
Autry v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 264 S.W.2d 735, relied upon by the majority, does not fit the facts of this case and does not apply. It appears to be out of line with all the other cases concerning harmless error. It is not in point with the present case and should not be cited as authority for the reversal. In fact, its author, in speaking for the Court, in effect overruled it in East v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 414, when he wrote:
“ . . . Autry v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 264 S.W.2d 735, is authority for the rule that the admission of improper evidence is not error if the same facts are proven by other testimony not objected to.”
There the Court followed the correct rule.
For the reasons stated, the State’s motion for rehearing should be granted and the judgment affirmed.