Severn v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Severn v. State

764 S.W.2d 560, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 10, 1989 WL 4317

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 25, 1989

DocketNo. 180-88

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 764 S.W.2d 560 (Severn 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.

Bluebook

Severn v. State, 764 S.W.2d 560, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 10, 1989 WL 4317 (Tex. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

[561]*561OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Howard Severn, henceforth appellant, appeals his conviction for the offense of indecency with a child. After finding the appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

On appeal, appellant urged that the trial court erred in admitting a pretrial videotape interview of the complainant, as authorized by Article 38.071, Section 2, V.A.C. C.P. It was urged that the admission of the videotaped testimony of the child victim did not allow for the contemporaneous confrontation of the witness against appellant. The Court of Appeals agreed, and reversed appellant’s conviction based on this Court’s decision in Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). Severn v. State, 744 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1987). However, the Court failed to determine whether the error was harmless in the context of the instant cause. Also see Mallory v. State, 752 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

We, therefore, grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remand this cause to that Court for consideration of the harmfulness of the error in this cause, pursuant to Tex.R.App.Proc., Rule 81(b)(2).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[561]*561OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Howard Severn, henceforth appellant, appeals his conviction for the offense of indecency with a child. After finding the appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.

On appeal, appellant urged that the trial court erred in admitting a pretrial videotape interview of the complainant, as authorized by Article 38.071, Section 2, V.A.C. C.P. It was urged that the admission of the videotaped testimony of the child victim did not allow for the contemporaneous confrontation of the witness against appellant. The Court of Appeals agreed, and reversed appellant’s conviction based on this Court’s decision in Long v. State, 742 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). Severn v. State, 744 S.W.2d 280 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1987). However, the Court failed to determine whether the error was harmless in the context of the instant cause. Also see Mallory v. State, 752 S.W.2d 566 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).

We, therefore, grant the State’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remand this cause to that Court for consideration of the harmfulness of the error in this cause, pursuant to Tex.R.App.Proc., Rule 81(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 S.W.2d 560, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 10, 1989 WL 4317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/severn-v-state-texcrimapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack