
Opinion issued February 15, 2007

 










In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas



NO. 01-05-00622-CR



JEREMY STEVEN ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 228th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 984059
__________________________________________________________________

CONCURRING OPINION

	I join the opinion of the panel with the exception of the majority's determination
that evidence that appellant made a threatening telephone call from Dallas to Houston
to attempt to extort money from the Praker family and that appellant was arrested
while returning from attempting to steal a third car was not evidence of flight and was
therefore inadmissible.  I believe this evidence is plainly admissible to show the
context and circumstances of appellant's flight and thus to support the inference that
appellant was conscious of his guilt of the crime with which he was charged and that
he, therefore, engaged in a series of blended and interwoven acts--including these
acts--to flee and to continue to flee.  See Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877, 903-04
(Tex. Crim. App. 1994).  I fear that labeling this evidence inadmissible while holding
that integrally related evidence of the same type is admissible sends a mixed signal to
litigants and courts and will lead to confusion.  I do agree that, if it had been error to
admit this evidence, the error would have been harmless.





							Evelyn V. Keyes
							Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.
Publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
