Joe Dale Johnson v. The State of Texas Appeal from 89th District Court of Wichita County (dissenting memorandum opinion by chief justice livingston)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-11-00253-CR JOE DALE JOHNSON APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM THE 89TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 48,790-C ---------- DISSENTING MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ON REMAND ---------I respectfully dissent from the en banc majority’s opinion and judgment reversing appellant’s convictions of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. I acknowledge that the majority of the court of criminal appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting appellant’s cross-examination of H.H., the complainant. Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2016). Nonetheless, for the reasons explained in this court’s prior en banc majority opinion and in the dissenting opinion in the court of criminal appeals, I remain convinced that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion by limiting the cross-examination. See id. at 915–18 (Keasler, J., dissenting); Johnson v. State, 449 S.W.3d 240, 245–47 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (en banc op. on reh’g), rev’d, 490 S.W.3d at 915. Because in my view the trial court did not err by limiting the cross-examination, appellant’s convictions should not be reversed. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a). /s/ Terrie Livingston TERRIE LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUSTICE MEIER, J., joins. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: March 2, 2017 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
