# Thornton v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 22, 2004 · 145 S.W.3d 228

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9610738

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles DeWayne THORNTON, Appellant v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 22, 2004
- **Citations:** 145 S.W.3d 228; 2004 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1397; 2004 WL 2099106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Womack
- **Judges:** Hervey, Keller, Meyers, Keasler, Holcomb, Price, Womack, Johnson, Cochran
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9610738

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing different concurring opinions in Crews and observing that majority of justices rejected claim that “a defendant’s face can be a suppressible fruit of an illegal arrest”
- holding sufficient attenuating factors existed dissipating taint of illegal arrest from derivative evidence obtained as a result of arrest
- discussing "fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine

## Opinion text

WOMACK, J.,
concurring, in which JOHNSON and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
The court of appeals held that the appellant’s Fourth Amendment objections were properly overruled because no evidence that was obtained from the illegal seizure in Arizona was admitted in his trial in Texas. See Thornton v. State, No. 2-01-152-CR (Tex.Ct App.-Fort Worth Dec. 12, 2002) (unpublished). I agree, and on that basis I concur in the judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9610738. Public record. Not legal advice.