holding appellant failed to preserve error with regard to cross-examination of prosecutor in Batson hearing by failing to make an offer of proof
How later courts described this case
- holding appellant failed to preserve error with regard to cross-examination of prosecutor in Batson hearing by failing to make an offer of proof
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BURGESS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result with these additional comments on point of error number four. The majority appears unwilling to “let go” of the constitutionality of article 37.-07(4)(a) as evidenced by their continued reference to Boudreaux v. State, 723 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1986, no pet.) and the comment “While we are aware of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion in Rose, we are also aware that the opinion is not definitely final.” I continue to maintain, as I have from the initial determination in Boudreaux , that the parole instruction is unconstitutional. Because the majority inferentially does not accept this, I disavow their comments in this regard. I concur in the result of point of error number four because I do not find the appellant has shown egregious harm. A fifty-year sentence for an individual with five previous felony convictions is not outside the realm of reasonable punishment based solely upon the evidence.