# Dallas v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · December 16, 1998 · 983 S.W.2d 276

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668304

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph Patrick DALLAS, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** December 16, 1998
- **Citations:** 983 S.W.2d 276; 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 177; 1998 WL 871024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Womack
- **Judges:** Mecormick, Baird, Overstreet, Keller, Holland, Price, Meyers, Womack, Mansfield
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Disapproved on other grounds by Ex Parte Anderer, 2001 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 103 (2001).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668304

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that, absent contrary law, trial court has inherent power to impose conditions on bail pending appeal The Honorable Susan D. Reed - Page 3 (JC-0215) that relate to purpose of assuring defendant’s continued appearance
- holding that the Chapter 17 procedures concerning bail are modified and supplemented by article 44.04 after an accused has been convicted and post-verdict proceedings are initiated
- stating that, absent contrary law, trial court has inherent power to impose conditions on bail pending appeal that relate to purpose of assuring defendant's continued appearance

## Opinion text

WOMACK, J.,
concurring.
I join the judgment of the Court and, except for the paragraphs that contain footnotes 3 and 4, its opinion. Those paragraphs are unnecessary to the resolution of this case since, as the Court holds {ante at 279-280), the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply to this case. And some of the language which those two paragraphs contain is at variance with the statement we recently made in Williams v. State, 965 S.W.2d 506, 507 (Tex.Cr.App.1998):
The expressio unius maxim has had widespread legal application, although it is not a rule of law and there is nothing peculiarly legal about it. Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 47.24 (5th ed.1992). It is a product of logic and common sense, expressing the learning of common experience that when people say one thing they do not mean something else. Ibid. The maxim acts merely as an aid to determine intent in statutes, contracts, wills, trusts, and other documents. Ibid. The maxim has been held to be inapplicable if there is some special reason for mentioning one thing and none for mentioning another. Id., § 47.23. En banc.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668304. Public record. Not legal advice.