# Saunders v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 15, 1961 · 172 Tex. Crim. 17

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681381

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnie Elden Saunders v. State
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 15, 1961
- **Citations:** 172 Tex. Crim. 17; 353 S.W.2d 419; 1961 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 3541
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by McDonald
- **Judges:** Morrison, McDonald, Woodley
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9681381

## Opinion text

*19 ON state’s motion for rehearing
McDonald, judge.
The state has directed our attention to a quoted holding in Bumpass v. State, 160 Texas Cr. Rep. 428 , 271 S.W. 2d 953 , wherein the arresting officer was asked what he did with the defendant after he was arrested, and the officer answered: “Well, I started into town with him and asked if he wanted a blood test.” The opinion continues:
“After considerable discussion between counsel and the bench, objection was sustained and the jurors were instructed not to consider that portion of the answer which related to a blood test. This alone would not reflect reversible error. Sublett v. State, 158 Texas Cr. Rep. 627 , 258 S.W. 2d 336 .”
We do not feel that the above excerpt from the opinion in Bumpass, supra, is any more than dicta. It did not control the disposition of the case. The case was reversed for the reasons stated in the opinion. It is authority only for the rule that the conduct set forth therein constitutes reversible error.
We are not here dealing with a case of a witness giving an unresponsive answer and relying solely upon that ground for reversal. We are here confronted with a prosecutor propounding a direct question and receiving an affirmative reply, and therefore deliberately getting before the jury information which he knew, or should have known, was inadmissible.
Remaining convinced that the case was correctly disposed of in the original opinion, the state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681381. Public record. Not legal advice.