concluding that the issue of whether evidence was “highly prejudicial” was not properly presented for appellate review because appellant raised an objection based on Rule 401 at trial but “did not raise a separate trial objection to the evidence based upon Rule 403”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the issue of whether evidence was “highly prejudicial” was not properly presented for appellate review because appellant raised an objection based on Rule 401 at trial but “did not raise a separate trial objection to the evidence based upon Rule 403”
- concluding that the issue of whether evidence was “highly prejudicial” was not preserved where appellant objected on relevance but “did not raise a separate trial objection to the evidence based upon Rule 403”
- noting that trial court has discretion to allow testimony from witness who has violated sequestration rule and that, in reviewing trial court’s decision to allow testimony, courts look at whether defendant was prejudiced by witness’s violation by considering whether witness actually conferred or heard testimony of other witnesses and whether witness’s testimony contradicts testimony of witness from opposing side
- holding that appellant could not challenge illegal search and seizure on appeal where only objection at trial was to the illegality of arrest
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAIRD, J.,
concurring.
I disagree with the majority’s treatment of appellant’s points of error nine, ten and eleven for the reasons stated in Morris v. State, 940 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Cr.App.1996) (Baird, J., dissenting). I concur in the disposition of the fifteenth point of error for the reasons stated in Green v. State, 912 S.W.2d 189, 196 (Tex.Cr.App.1995) (Baird and Overstreet, JJ., concurring). Accordingly, I join only the judgment of the Court.
OVERSTREET, J., concurs.