# Bell v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 20, 1996 · 938 S.W.2d 35

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760452

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter BELL, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 20, 1996
- **Citations:** 938 S.W.2d 35; 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 232; 1996 WL 668594
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Baird, Overstreet
- **Cited by:** 535 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/9760452

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 ac…
- holding that appellant could not challenge illegal search and seizure on appeal where only objection at trial was to the illegality of arrest
- finding it significant that the majority of the news coverage about which appellant complained occurred years before the trial

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9760452. Public record. Not legal advice.