# Harris v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 28, 1989 · 790 S.W.2d 568

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655184

## Case

- **Full name:** Danny Ray HARRIS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 28, 1989
- **Citations:** 790 S.W.2d 568; 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 151; 1989 WL 69709
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** McCormick, Teague, Clinton, Duncan, Berchelmann
- **Cited by:** 986 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Snowden, Rion Pheal, 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1321 (2011).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655184

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- holding that multi-step process must be followed to preserve error regarding an objectionable juror

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655184. Public record. Not legal advice.