stating that when an appellant alleges trial court error in permitting joinder, a harm analysis should not be undertaken until the appellate court first determines that an error was actually committed
How later courts described this case
- stating that when an appellant alleges trial court error in permitting joinder, a harm analysis should not be undertaken until the appellate court first determines that an error was actually committed
- any error in misjoinder in indictment was not reversible error because jury instruction limited jury to returning a guilty verdict on only one offense
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Warmowski v. State, 818 S.W.2d 505 (1992)
Ponder, is clearly distinguishable in that it involves the application of art. 21.24, which no one even suggests is “mandatory,” but rather is a permissive statute providing that “[t]wo or more offenses may be joined in a single indictment ... if the offenses arise out of the same criminal episode....
The opinion
TEAGUE, J.,
dissents for the reasons he expressed in the dissenting opinion filed in Sifford v. State, 741 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Cr.App. No. 435-86, delivered November 25, 1987, motion for rehearing overruled December 16, 1987).