defining prejudice under Strickland in this context as the two factors from Kimmelman—a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence
How later courts described this case
- defining prejudice under Strickland in this context as the two factors from Kimmelman—a meritorious Fourth Amendment claim and a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence
- officer conducting warrantless search under the emergency doctrine was justified in cutting through plastic container located inside victim's residence and retrieving victim's body
- noting that Petitioner “admitted killing Robert Pierce after the latter solicited a homosexual act from him”
- "Because there existed the possibility that the victim was still alive, we cannot fault the officers' decision to investigate further."
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Brimage v. State, 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 (1996)
In response, we would point out that Wharton is inapplicable to this cause in that it holds, as do the cases it cites, that a warrantless entry into the victim’s dwelling in a missing person investigation may be validated by the emergency doctrine.
The opinion
Kennard, J.,
concurred.
The petition of respondent Wharton for a rehearing was denied July 9, 1991, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Mosk, J., Broussard, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.