in case in which defendant had applied for probation, following rule cited in Murphy to hold unadjudicated extraneous offense improperly admitted, and also holding defendant did not open door to its admission by then rebutting same with psychologist’s testimony that he was suitable for probation
How later courts described this case
- in case in which defendant had applied for probation, following rule cited in Murphy to hold unadjudicated extraneous offense improperly admitted, and also holding defendant did not open door to its admission by then rebutting same with psychologist’s testimony that he was suitable for probation
- defendant does not “open the door” to extraneous conduct evidence admitted before defendant gave evidence that would otherwise “open the door”
- all involving admission of extraneous-offense evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEAGUE and MILLER, JJ.,
concur in the result only, and would follow the rationale of Judge MILLER’S opinion on original submission in Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.Cr.App. opinion on rehearing delivered this day).