Bain v. State
This text of 492 S.W.2d 475 (Bain v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The offense is sale of amphetamine; the punishment, upon a plea of guilty to a jury, two (2) years.
Appellant’s sole ground of error relates to the following “have you heard” question propounded to appellant’s character witness:
“Q. Well, have you heard that on January 17, 1972, while he was at the Juvenile Home, located in the city of Dallas, that he possessed marijuana?
“MR. PARKS: Objection, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Overruled.”
No further objection was made. Such an objection is too general and presents nothing for review. Dyche v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 944; Russell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 373; Hinkle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 442 S.W.2d 728. The record also reflects that the defense established the fact that the appellant was in the Juvenile Home at the time mentioned.
*476 Further, the record reflects that following the objection, a substantially similar question, containing the same elements, was asked and answered without objection. Admission of improper evidence is not reversible error if the same facts are proven by other testimony not objected to. Green v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 488 S.W.2d 80S; Ca-rew v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 860; Autry v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 419, 264 S.W.2d 735.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
492 S.W.2d 475, 1973 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bain-v-state-texcrimapp-1973.