holding that in undertaking a rule 81(b)(2), supra, harm analysis, “the appellate court should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence”
How later courts described this case
- holding that in undertaking a rule 81(b)(2), supra, harm analysis, “the appellate court should calculate as much as possible the probable impact of the error on the jury in light of the existence of other evidence”
- holding that the reviewing court must focus upon the integrity of the process leading to the conviction and should "always examine whether the trial was an essentially fair one’’
- recognizing that overwhelming evidence of guilt can be a factor in determining whether erroneous introduction of evidence contributed to appellant’s conviction
- holding that error, if any, was cured by trial court’s sustaining the objection and instructing jury to disregard
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Snowden, Rion Pheal, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1321 (2011)
790 S.W.2d 568, 587 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815, 822
The opinion
McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
Since I am not convinced that the admission of evidence demonstrating extraneous offenses was erroneous, I therefore concur in the judgment of the Court.