Pending on State’s Motion for Rehearing
How later courts described this case
- Pending on State’s Motion for Rehearing
- "would the evidence that also proved the robbery at Ready-Mart Food Store aid in determining whether the appellant is the person who committed the offense at SIC?"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Boutwell v. State, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1338 (1985)
530 S.W.2d 841, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975), overruled on other grounds by Boutwell v. State, 719 S.W.2d 164
Overruled by Moore v. State, 1985 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1719 (1985)
530 S.W.2d 841 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), (which holds to the contrary), is overruled.”
The opinion
MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the reversal of this cause. In my concurring opinion in Henriksen v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 491 , at page 497, I said:
“Though not without difficulty, I have concluded that the above similarities are sufficient . . . ”
In that case the similarities were “a peculiar trait” of bringing a paper bag into a supermarket, where paper bags are readily available, and wearing a cap and sun glasses.
The only similarities between the primary offense and the extraneous offense in the instant case are those set forth in footnote one of the dissenting opinion.
Under our holding in Ford, supra, I cannot conclude that these similarities are sufficient.