Dominguez, Ramon Obdulio v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 2, 2004
• Docket: 14-03-00893-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed; Opinion of July 13, 2004, Withdrawn; and Substituted Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 2, 2004

Affirmed; Opinion of July 13, 2004, Withdrawn; and Substituted Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 2, 2004.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-03-00893-CR

RAMON OBDULIO DOMINGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 932,863

S U B S T I T U T E D   C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N

I fully join in the majority opinion except for one point discussed in connection with appellant=s first issue.  The majority holds that appellant=s counsel did not object specifically enough the first time the prosecutor used the word Amurdered.@  I disagree that counsel failed to state the reasons for his objection.  Rather it appears to me that counsel=s objection was overruled before he had the opportunity to state his reasons for objecting.  I would hold only that counsel failed to preserve error because an objection was not lodged each time the prosecutor used the word Amurder.@

/s/        Wanda McKee Fowler

Justice

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed November 2, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Seymore.  (Edelman, J., majority.)

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).