Court Opinion

ID: 9665956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:00:23.41329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:21.180467
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
concurring.
In this case, appellant’s prior robbery conviction was alleged in the indictment, and defense counsel had seen the TDC pen packet in the State’s file before trial. The majority holds that, even though appellant and his counsel had full knowledge of the State’s awareness of the conviction, the trial court erred in allowing the State to use the conviction to impeach appellant when he took the stand. I disagree.
In my opinion, the trial court properly overruled appellant’s objection based on Tex. R.CRIm.Evid. 609(f). The purpose of this rule is “to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence” of a prior conviction. TexR.Crim. Evid. 609(f). Armed with the knowledge he had about the conviction and the State’s awareness of the conviction, appellant certainly was on notice that, if he took the stand to testify in his own behalf, the State would attempt to impeach him with the conviction. There was no surprise or “lack of a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence” in this case. Unlike the majority, I agree with the reasoning of our sister court in Cream v. State, 768 S.W.2d 323, 326 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.).
I would overrule appellant’s point of error four because the trial court did not err.