# Jackson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 17, 2000 · 17 S.W.3d 664

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652424

## Case

- **Full name:** Derrick JACKSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 17, 2000
- **Citations:** 17 S.W.3d 664; 2000 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 55; 2000 WL 628320
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **Judges:** Price, Mansfield, McCormick, Meyers, Keller, Holland, Womack, Johnson, Keasler
- **Cited by:** 985 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/9652424

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that prosecutor's argument that "the defense would have called its [DNA] expert to the stand if it had seriously disputed the State's evidence" did not shift the burden of proof to the defense and was a permissible "comment on the defendant's failure to produce witness…
- holding that the State did not impermissibly shift the burden to the defense by arguing the defense would have called its expert to the stand if it had seriously disputed the State’s evidence where the prosecutor’s comments were actually rebuttal to defense counsel’s argument …
- holding that there was no harm because the State’s DNA evidence was in fact reliable, notwithstanding evidence that the State failed to use reagent blanks “to. eliminate the possibility of cross-contamination" and that the protocol was later upgraded to include reagent blanks
- holding that, even though the trial court refused to hold a hearing outside the jury’s presence and abandoned its gatekeeping function with respect to the last two Kelly requirements, “the error was harmless because the State’s DNA evidence was in fact reliable”
- holding that 10 prosecutor’s comments concerning defendant’s failure to call his experts to the stand to refute the State’s DNA evidence were not comments on the defendant’s failure to testify and “did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defense”

## Opinion text

MANSFIELD, J.,
concurs in the judgment only on point three, , and otherwise joins the opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652424. Public record. Not legal advice.