# Murphy v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 21, 1989 · 777 S.W.2d 44

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677161

## Case

- **Full name:** Gary Lynn MURPHY, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 21, 1989
- **Citations:** 777 S.W.2d 44; 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 142; 1988 WL 28678
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clinton
- **Judges:** Clinton, White, McCormick, Teague, Duncan, Onion, Miller, Berchelmann
- **Cited by:** 153 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/9677161

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant=s life and characteristics is highly relevant, if not essential, to selection of an appropriate sentence

## Opinion text

CLINTON, Judge,
dissenting.
Murphy v. State, 700 S.W.2d 747 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985), applied literally the definition of “prior criminal record,” distinguished on its facts and thus declined to be guided by a broad statement in Allaben v. State, 418 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) (evidence that is relevant to the application for probation is also admissible), held Article 37.07, § 3 “controls the instant case” and, therefore, concluded: “The unadjudi-cated extraneous offense testimony admitted by the trial court was admitted in violation of article 37.07(3).” Id., at 749-750.
Being in agreement with that particular rationale, but for the leading opinion by Judge Miller, like three other judges I too would concur in the resulting affirmance of the judgment rendered by the Dallas Court of Appeals.
In my view, however, the Legislature has yet to provide in Article 42.12, § 3a (a), that discretion of a jury in determining an application for probation need be informed by any evidence beyond that permitted in Article 37.07, § 3 — much more evidence on the alleged “issue [of] whether appellant was a worthy candidate for probation,” including unadjudicated offenses for the ostensible purpose of showing his “probable future conduct,” slip opinion, at 6.
Therefore, I must dissent to that proposition, albeit expressed by a plurality of three judges. Similar issues await decision in other causes, and more will no doubt be written then.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677161. Public record. Not legal advice.