# Dinkins v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · February 1, 1995 · 894 S.W.2d 330

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9669316

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard Eugene DINKINS, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** February 1, 1995
- **Citations:** 894 S.W.2d 330; 1995 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 9; 1995 WL 40331
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** Baird, McCormick, White, Meyers, Clinton
- **Cited by:** 1,456 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/9669316

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that record did not support a showing that appellant requested an attorney even though a t some point during the interrogation appellant asked detective “what a lawyer would tell him to do,” and detective informed appellant “in no uncertain terms that a lawyer would te…
- stating in a legal-sufficiency analysis of future-dangerousness special issue that mere fact that a capital offense is committed “is insufficient in itself to prove future dangerousness” even though “the circumstances of the offense alone may be sufficient to sustain the jury’…
- holding that a victim’s appointment book listing defendant’s name and a patient application listing a similar name were not hearsay because they were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but were used to explain how the defendant became a 6 suspect
- concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to permit appellant to ask a prospective juror whether he could adhere to the definition of reasonable doubt that was provided under the law at the time, but that the error was harmless
- finding it significant that appellant fired additional fatal shot to victim’s head after she had fallen from the first fatal shot to her abdomen; infliction of multiple wounds at close range indicated a wanton and callous disregard for human life

## Opinion text

McCORMICK, P.J., and WHITE and MEYERS, JJ.,
concur with the following note: Regarding appellant’s eighth point of error, we do not agree that the trial judge abused his discretion by limiting trial counsel’s questions. Therefore we can only concur in the result since the majority holds harmless the alleged error. We otherwise join the majority opinion.
*362 MALONEY, J., concurs in the result reached in Part III and otherwise joins the opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9669316. Public record. Not legal advice.