Opinion

Ex Parte Medellin

  • 280 S.W.3d 854
  • 2008 WL 2952485
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Filed
Jul 31, 2008
Status
Published
Author
Meyers
On the bench
Price, Cochran, Holcomb, Meyers
Cited by
12 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.6%

"Texas courts have long followed the Supreme Court's reasoning concerning the importance of the contemporaneous objection rule in the fair, effective, and efficient operation of its state courts.”

How later courts described this case

  • "Texas courts have long followed the Supreme Court's reasoning concerning the importance of the contemporaneous objection rule in the fair, effective, and efficient operation of its state courts.”
  • “In Texas, we have a contemporaneous objection rule which requires all litigants to make a timely request, claim, or objection or forfeit the right to raise that request, claim, or objection after trial. This same rule applies in every jurisdiction in America. As the Supreme Court explained over thirty years ago, the contemporaneous objection rule serves important judicial interests in American criminal cases and deserves respect throughout the land.”
  • “[A] a contemporaneous objection permits the trial judge to remedy potential error before it occurs.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MEYERS, J.,

dissenting statement.

I would file and set applicant’s Article 11.071/original writ. See Ex parte Davis, 947 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Crim.App.1996).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.