# Hedicke v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 21, 1989 · 779 S.W.2d 837

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681113

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert E. HEDICKE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 21, 1989
- **Citations:** 779 S.W.2d 837; 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 141; 1989 WL 65807
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Clinton
- **Judges:** White, Teague, McCormick, Miller, Campbell, Duncan
- **Cited by:** 65 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/9681113

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that personal opinion testimony of a witness who knows the person is one method of proving character

## Opinion text

*844 CLINTON, Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the Judge White’s plurality-opinion inasmuch as it concludes that by “character” evidence, Article 37.07, § 3(a), V.A.C.C.P., the Legislature authorized use of opinion testimony as to character. I am frankly puzzled, however, that in holding evidence of specific conduct inadmissible, in accordance with the plurality opinion handed down this day in Murphy v. State, 777 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), he chooses to characterize that opinion as having “overruled a substantial amount of caselaw....” at 839. Though a handful of cases were “disapproved” in Murphy , by and large our opinion on rehearing was an attempt to harmonize prior caselaw insofar as possible.
Having concluded error was committed in this cause, the plurality opinion proceeds to find it harmless, relying primarily on the Court’s opinion on rehearing in Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). The Court would do better, in my opinion, to await disposition of certain petitions recently granted to review various courts of appeals’ application of Tex.R.App.Pro., Rule 81(b)(2) analysis to Rose error, before undertaking to rely on Rose here. At any rate, this Court should not endeavor to conduct a harm analysis in the first instance, but should remand to the court of appeals “for it to exercise the unique power and authority retained by that court under Article V, §§ 5 and 6 and other provision cited” at Juarez v. State, 758 S.W.2d 772, at 783-85 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (Clinton, J., dissenting). See also Hammett v. State, 713 S.W.2d 102, at 107 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).
Agreeing with the plurality in its resolution of the substantive question of law we granted this petition to decide, I nevertheless dissent to its conclusion the error was harmless in this cause.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681113. Public record. Not legal advice.