Court Opinion

ID: 9681320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:48:15.072599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:33.281067
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I write to express my approval of Part II of Judge Roberts opinion holding that “the jury’s discussion of the parole laws will hereafter be analyzed only as jury misconduct under the provisions of V.A.C.C.P., Article 40.03(8), rather than as receipt of other evidence under the provisions of V.A. C.C.P., Article 40.03(7).”
I also join Judge Dally in his dissent. I would hold that hereafter the jury’s discussion of the parole laws will be analyzed only under Article 40.03(8), V.A.C.C.P., and that the five-prong test of Heredia v. State, 528 S.W.2d 847 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), should be used to determine the presence of reversible error.