# Love v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 9, 1993 · 861 S.W.2d 899

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677362

## Case

- **Full name:** Ivan Knox LOVE, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 9, 1993
- **Citations:** 861 S.W.2d 899; 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 118; 1993 WL 191149
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clinton
- **Judges:** Clinton, Miller, McCormick
- **Cited by:** 212 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/9677362

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that Confrontation Clause error in restricting cross-examination was harmful under Van Arsdall and Shelby; noting that the "precluded evidence cast doubt on the reliability of the breath test result and discredited some testimony" by expert in DWI trial
- holding that error may be preserved by an offer of proof in question and answer form or in the form of a concise statement by counsel
- noting that defendant’s complaint about the trial court’s refusal to allow him to recall a 15 prosecution witness for impeachment purposes was predicated upon an exclusion of evidence—the impeachment testimony

## Opinion text

CLINTON, J.,
dissents because the majority does not address and resolve ground # 2 as presented to and treated by the court of appeals, and in any event the latter should make the harm analysis.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677362. Public record. Not legal advice.