treating objection as sufficient to preserve error when objection was late but made before exhibit was read or delivered to jury, and attorney explained reason for lateness
How later courts described this case
- treating objection as sufficient to preserve error when objection was late but made before exhibit was read or delivered to jury, and attorney explained reason for lateness
- "there was no showing that ... violence was intended although the appellant was armed when he entered the store"
- “Thus the wide discretion given to the trial court under Article 37.071(a), supra, extends only to the question of relevance –5– of the facts sought to be proved. Article 37.071(a) does not alter the rules of evidence insofar as the manner of proof is concerned.”
- where evidence held insufficient, there was no psychiatric testimony, prior criminal convictions were not violent in nature and only one witness testified to bad character
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, J.,
concurs, would add with respect points one and two, that data in NCIC reports are so notoriously flawed, Gassett v. State, 532 S.W.2d 328, 330-331 (Tex. Cr.App.1976), that even the F.B.I. will not vouch for their accuracy.