# Drew v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 21, 1989 · 777 S.W.2d 74

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677155

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Ray DREW, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 21, 1989
- **Citations:** 777 S.W.2d 74; 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 138; 1989 WL 65808
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by White
- **Judges:** Clinton, Teague, Miller, Campbell, Duncan, White, Berchelmann
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9677155

## Opinion text

WHITE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s opinion because I would hold that specific instances of conduct are admissible at the punishment phase under Art. 37.07, Sec. 3(a), V.A.C.C.P., subject only to the constraints of a relevancy analysis. See Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.Cr.App., this day decided) (Opinion on Motion for Rehearing) (White, J., dissenting). I also dissent to the majority’s determination that appellant’s specific act of misconduct would have been admissible only in the event of appellant opening the door first.
Because the majority withdraws such probative and admissible evidence from the members of the jury, I must respectfully dissent.
BERCHELMANN, J., joins this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677155. Public record. Not legal advice.