NO. 07-02-0202-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
OCTOBER 1, 2003
______________________________
QUINTON L. JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2002-439,305; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Quinton L. Johnson (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled
substance, with intent to deliver. Through two issues, he contends that the trial court erred
by allowing in two hearsay statements. We overrule the issues and affirm the judgment.
Issues One and Two – Admission of Purported Hearsay Testimony
As previously mentioned, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling
his objections to purported hearsay. The first instance involved an officer testifying about
what a third party told him regarding appellant’s gang affiliation. The second concerned
reference to what a witness’ brother had said about appellant residing in the witness’
house. As to the former instance, the same evidence (i.e. what a third party told the officer
about appellant’s gang affiliation) had been solicited and admitted without objection earlier
in the trial. Because the purported hearsay was previously admitted without objection, any
error arising from its re-introduction later in the trial was cured. Hudson v. State, 675
S.W.2d 507, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (holding that error in the admission of evidence
is cured when the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection).
As to the second instance of purported hearsay, the latter consisted of the State
asking a witness (Ms. Mitchell) whether it would surprise her to know that Charles Mitchell
told the police that appellant and three others “stayed in the southeast bedroom” of her
house. However, that was not the first time reference was made to Charles Mitchell
informing the police of that matter. Appellant had previously asked the same witness “[i]f
Charles Mitchell said in his report that they were all four living there [including appellant],
Charles is not correct probably, right?” Having first presented the alleged hearsay to the
jury, appellant cannot complain of its inadmissibility when the State revisited it. Hudson
v. State, supra.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
2