# Gardner v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 25, 1987 · 730 S.W.2d 675

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667868

## Case

- **Full name:** Billy Conn GARDNER, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 25, 1987
- **Citations:** 730 S.W.2d 675; 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 552
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Onion
- **Judges:** Campbell, Clinton, Onion, Teague, White
- **Cited by:** 453 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667868

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding state trial court properly granted the prosecution’s chal lenge for cause to a venire member who expressed confusion over her ability to answer the former Texas capital sentencing special issue inquiring into whether the defendant had acted “deliberately” independently…
- holding that a witness’s 5 statement that the appellant had been in prison “was undoubtedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony, having no relevance to any issue at the guilt stage of trial” but that “that bare fact, unembellished, was not so inflammatory as to undermine th…
- holding that while witness’s reference to defendant’s prior incarceration was “undoubtedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony” that had no relevance to guilt-innocence phase of trial, “that bare fact, unembellished, was not so inflammatory as to undermine the efficacy of t…
- concluding that evidence that defendant had been incarcerated, unembell- ished, was not so inflammatory as to undermine efficacy of trial court’s instruction to disregard
- finding witness’ testimony, “[the defendant] told me that even when he was in the penitentiary, that he had stomach problems,” was not so inflammatory as to undermine efficacy of trial court’s instruction to disregard

## Opinion text

ONION, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur only in the result reached by the majority. I would disassociate myself from much of the language and some of the reasoning used. Much of the discussion in the majority opinion is needless and unnecessary to the proper disposition of certain grounds of error, and expresses only the personal views of the writer or a minority of the Court. See, e.g., the discussion on whether the trial court erroneously granted the State’s challenge for cause to Maxine Hooper, a prospective juror. I freely predict that much of the unnecessary language will resurface in future opinions as quotes from the Court’s opinion in Gardner when the minority viewpoint is again offered for adoption. We will then be told we have already claimed the renegade in Gardner.
CAMPBELL, J., joins this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9667868. Public record. Not legal advice.