finding that the improper admission of first confession was harmless Ain light of second admissible confession containing substantively the same facts@
How later courts described this case
- finding that the improper admission of first confession was harmless Ain light of second admissible confession containing substantively the same facts@
- holding that admission of illegally obtained confession was harmless in light of second admissible confession containing substantially same facts
- holding that defendant waived claim of deprivation of due course and due process by failing to object at trial
- concluding that an objection which differs from the error raised on appeal preserves nothing for review
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ruben Borrego v. State (2006)
Sterling, however, is distinguishable from the present
Distinguished by Randy Romero v. State (2004)
Sterling is also inapposite because the Sterling
Distinguished by Gipson v. State, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 208 (1992)
Both Connor and Sterling are distinguishable.
The opinion
TEAGUE, J.,
dissents for the reasons expressed in this Court’s opinion in Dunn v. State, 721 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), also see Connor v. State, 773 S.W.2d 13 -15 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), and because admitting into evidence over objection an involuntary confession cannot ever be harmless error to the defendant.
STURNS, J., not participating