The opinion
ODOM, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority’s decision to overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing without written opinion. On original submission a panel of this Court held that the issue of the lawfulness of the search and seizure was waived when appellant testified and admitted possession of the seized property. By motion for rehearing appellant pointed out that the panel decision was in conflict with Thomas v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 572 S.W.2d 507, 512 (on motion for rehearing), at 516, in which the Court, speaking through Presiding Judge Onion, held:
“. . . the harmful effect of improperly admitted evidence which is obtained by illegal police practices is not cured when a defendant gives testimony on direct examination which establishes the same or similar facts unless the state can show that its illegal action in obtaining and introducing the evidence did not impel the defendant’s testimony.” (Emphasis added.)
The State did not discharge its burden under Thomas , and appellant is entitled to consideration of the ground of error on the merits. To the Court’s refusal to give equal application of the Thomas holding to the facts of this case, I respectfully dissent.
ROBERTS and CLINTON, JJ., join in this dissent.