# Wilford v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 12, 1987 · 739 S.W.2d 854

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779046

## Case

- **Full name:** Barbara L. WILFORD, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 12, 1987
- **Citations:** 739 S.W.2d 854; 1987 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 699
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Duncan
- **Judges:** Onion, Teague, Duncan, Miller, Campbell, Clinton, State
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779046

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779046. Public record. Not legal advice.