concluding that it was error to refuse to empanel a jury when the defendant’s attorneys testified as to his incompetence, since the testimony presented some evidence of incompetence
How later courts described this case
- concluding that it was error to refuse to empanel a jury when the defendant’s attorneys testified as to his incompetence, since the testimony presented some evidence of incompetence
- concluding that commenting on fact that defendant slept during his trial amounts to little more than directing the jury’s attention to that which jurors had already witnessed
- holding that contentions involving noncompliance with art. 36.27 cannot be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a timely objection
- evidence sufficient to support affirmative answer to future- dangerousness special issue where evidence showed that the defendant raped a woman who was six months pregnant and who bled to death as result of stab wounds that the defendant inflicted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ODOM, Judge.
On original submission the Court remanded this cause for a competency hearing. By motion for rehearing the State challenges that holding. Appellant, however, has now expressly waived that issue and withdrawn it from the appeal. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion for rehearing and affirm the judgment of the trial court.