holding appellate courts are free to review "unassigned error," which is error that is preserved by proper objection or complaint in the trial court, but not raised on appeal
How later courts described this case
- holding appellate courts are free to review "unassigned error," which is error that is preserved by proper objection or complaint in the trial court, but not raised on appeal
- explaining that the Supreme Court and state courts have recognized “the desirability of avoiding the adjudication of constitutional issues when at all possible”
- explaining that Courts should avoid resolving constitutional issues in cases where adjudication of those issues can be avoided
- holding that courts should not address constitutional complaints unless necessary for disposition of the case
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOMACK, J.,
filed a concurring
opinion.
Because I agree with the principle that appellate courts should give the parties notice of, and an opportunity to brief, issues that no party has raised on appeal, * I join the judgment of the Court.
I also agree with the principle that courts should avoid the decision of constitutional issues that are not necessary to the resolution of cases. But, because I do not agree with the Court’s discussion of the relationship of that principle to the former principle (ante at Part II), I do not join the opinion of the Court.
See Montanez v. State, — S.W.3d —, —, 2006 WL 1083917 (Tex. Cr.App., PD-894-04, decided today) (Womack, J., dissenting).