HUEY COLLINS APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE (2017)

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

In his third point, Appellant argues only that “the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the outcry testimony of Kacie Hand, as she was not a proper outcry witness under the statute.” He reinforces this focus in his reply brief when he argues that “the blanket testimony of Ms. Hand should not have been allowed, as argued in Appellant's Brief.” Because Appellant does not argue in his briefing that the trial court erred by admitting Macy's testimony under article 38.072, which the majority opinion recognizes, I disagree with the majority opinion addressing and finding error in the admission of Macy's testimony in its discussion of point three. With these comments, I concur in the court's judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

LEE GABRIEL JUSTICE