Moss v. State

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

THOMAS, Chief Justice.

On original submission we held that Moss failed to preserve his Batson complaint because his motion was not timely. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); Hill v. State, 827 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 297, 121 L.Ed.2d 221 (1992). Moss now claims in his motion for rehearing that this conclusion .is erroneous. In response, the State concedes that the Batson challenge was timely and joins Moss in urging that we reconsider the complaint on the merits. Although we will…