# Fuller v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · March 25, 1992 · 829 S.W.2d 191

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654834

## Case

- **Full name:** Aaron Lee FULLER, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** March 25, 1992
- **Citations:** 829 S.W.2d 191; 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 62; 1992 WL 55274
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clinton
- **Judges:** Benavides, Clinton, Miller, Overstreet, Baird, Maloney
- **Cited by:** 408 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Castillo v. State, 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 124 (1995).
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 3
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654834

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no error when trial court overruled relevancy objection “pending the fact that” the prosecutor would introduce evidence sufficient to fulfill a condition of fact; “Clearly, the parties must be allowed to develop their cases one step at a time.”
- finding inquiry is whether photographs so horrifying or appalling that juror of normal sensitivity would necessarily encounter difficulty rationally deciding critical issues of case after viewing the photographs
- holding that under rule 104(b), evidence should not be excluded merely because its relevance may depend upon the production of additional evidence at a later point in the trial
- holding that defendant did not have standing under art. 38.23 to object to admission of evidence unlawfully obtained from another person
- stating that jurors must be willing to consider the full range of punishment applicable to the offense to avoid a challenge for cause

## Opinion text

CLINTON, Judge,
dissents with note:
Dissents generally and particularly to disposition of point four for the reason that under the “plain language rule” an accused is entitled to complain that evidence ob *211 tained illegally “shall (not) be admitted in evidence against (him).” Article 38.23(a), V.A.C.C.P.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654834. Public record. Not legal advice.