recognizing that pretrial motion filed “the day of trial” was untimely and trial court did not err in denying it
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that pretrial motion filed “the day of trial” was untimely and trial court did not err in denying it
- holding that, although suggestive, identification procedures whereby suspects are viewed singly by a witness rather than by lineup, are not unduly suggestive in circumstances which necessitate prompt identification
- noting that when the defendant’s request to suppress evidence is supported by evidence and the trial court considered evidence to resolve the motion in a pre-trial hearing, the trial court’s ruling, for purposes of appeal, preserves error even if the defendant in the course of the trial later fails to object to the admission of the evidence made the subject of his pre-trial motion
- holding that a pre-trial motion filed the day of trial is untimely
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DOUGLAS, Judge
(concurring).
The majority of the Court recognizes that it was in error in Riojas v. State, 530 S.W.2d 298 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). While the majority is modifying that decision, it should modify it completely by overruling it. When the court overruled the motion to suppress prior to trial in the present case, why was not that motion just as good and sufficient as the motion made in the Riojas case? If the majority in the Riojas case is correct, the trial court in the present case could have remembered the motion at a trial held later and, when the evidence concerning the arrest and search was adduced, the court could have acted upon the motion. The majority in the Riojas case erroneously held in effect that a trial judge must remember a motion to suppress, the evidence adduced thereon and its ruling even though it was not called to his attention during the trial on the merits some ten weeks later. The majority in Riojas held that the motion to suppress was based on a statute. In the present case the motion to suppress was based on the same statute. There is no reason for a different rule.
To make it short, there is no reason for the rule in the Riojas case. See the dissenting opinions.
For the above reasons, I concur in the affirmance of the conviction.