# Pondexter v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 16, 1996 · 942 S.W.2d 577

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660144

## Case

- **Full name:** Willie Earl PONDEXTER, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 16, 1996
- **Citations:** 942 S.W.2d 577; 1996 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 213; 1996 WL 591110
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Baird, Clinton, Keller, Mansfield, McCormick, Overstreet, White
- **Cited by:** 326 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/9660144

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that evidence of gang affiliation had been introduced for the sole purpose of showing the defendant’s bad character
- finding that A[h]ad the State put on its case without . . . appellant=s connection with gangs, the jury surely would have had no problems following and understanding the sequence of events of the night of the murder@
- finding that “[h]ad the State put on its case without ... appellant’s connection with gangs, the jury surely would have had no problems following and understanding the sequence of events of the night of the murder”
- finding that "[h]ad the State put on its case without... appellant's connection with gangs, the jury surely would have had no problems following and understanding the sequence of events of the night of the murder"
- holding that appellant is entitled to prosecutor's voir dire notes if they were actually used by prosecutor to refresh his memory

## Opinion text

BAIRD, J.,
concurs: I concur in the resolution of point of error eleven, believing the error was cured when the same evidence was admitted through other sources. I disagree with the treatment of points of error nineteen, twenty and twenty-one for the reasons stated in Morris v. State, 940 S.W.2d 610, 616 (Baird, J., dissenting). I join the remainder of the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9660144. Public record. Not legal advice.