Smith v. State

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

The issue in this cause is made by “Rose error.” See Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). Conducting the sort of harm analysis done on rehearing in Rose, at 554 the court of appeals concluded the error did not contribute to punishment. Smith v. State, 764 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1989).1 We granted review to deter*927mine whether with the proper appellate undertaking a reviewing court could say beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous submission of unconstitutional parole law instructions made no contribution to the…