arguing that "[b]ecause we are a discretionary review court, and not, in this context, 'the appellate court,' [set out in former Tex. R. App. P. 81(b)(2)], we should not resolve the issue of harmfulness as a matter of first impression"
How later courts described this case
- arguing that "[b]ecause we are a discretionary review court, and not, in this context, 'the appellate court,' [set out in former Tex. R. App. P. 81(b)(2)], we should not resolve the issue of harmfulness as a matter of first impression"
- arguing that "remanding cases for a harm analysis is an illusory display of respect and a meaningless squandering of judicial resources that our over-burdened appellate court system can ill afford"
- holding State=s insinuation defendant was involved in prior criminal acts was unfairly prejudicial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I do not agree that the admission of the complained of evidence was error, but be *30 lieve the Court of Appeals was correct in its disposition. I, therefore, dissent to the finding of error.
However, for the reasons set forth in Part II of Judge Clinton’s concurring opinion, I concur in the remand to the Court of Appeals for assessment of harm, if any.
J. WHITE joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.