Cates v. State

I agree with the holding in the majority opinion that the Dallas Court of Appeals, see Cates v. State, 748 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.App.5th 1987), erred in sustaining the trial judge’s decision to admit into evidence statements that William Curtis Cates, henceforth appellant, made to Joanna Vat-sis, henceforth Vatsis, a caseworker employed by the Texas Department of Human Resources, henceforth TDHR. Therefore, I concur.

I also concur because I find that although the majority opinion does not expressly overrule this Court’s majority opinion of Paez v. State, 681 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), it has…