noting exceptions (exited utterance, present sense impression, that subsequently elicited testimony rendered error and then-existing mental, emotional or physical “harmless”). We overrule Issues Two, Three, and Four. condition
How later courts described this case
- noting exceptions (exited utterance, present sense impression, that subsequently elicited testimony rendered error and then-existing mental, emotional or physical “harmless”). We overrule Issues Two, Three, and Four. condition
- noting that subsequently elicited testimony rendered error “harmless”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DUNCAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Interpreting what the trial court instructed the appellant to do after it refused to permit him to perfect his bill of exception, the majority states: “[t]he trial court instructed appellant to dictate into the record what the expected answers of T.C. Jones would have been.” (P. 861). That is an erroneous mischaracterization of the court’s instructions. The trial court told the appellant: “[I] want you to dictate in the record what you expect to prove.” (P. *868 860). Complying with the trial court’s instructions the appellant did just that.
For the majority to reject a substantive review of the appellant’s points of error regarding the limitation of his cross-examination of T.C. Jones on the grounds that his alleged error was not preserved misconstrues the record. Consequently, I dissent.