# Ortiz v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · September 25, 2002 · 93 S.W.3d 79

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680682

## Case

- **Full name:** Ricardo ORTIZ, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** September 25, 2002
- **Citations:** 93 S.W.3d 79; 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 185; 2002 WL 31116634
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Keller
- **Judges:** Keasler, Keller, Womack
- **Cited by:** 627 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/9680682

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that trial counsel=s conduct could have been part of a reasonable trial strategy, where trial counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony that allegedly violated the Confrontation Clause, and trial counsel=s reasons for his actions or intentions did not appear in …
- holding that “[w]hen an ineffective assistance claim alleges that counsel was deficient in failing to object to the admission of evidence, the defendant must show, as part of his claim, that the evidence was inadmissible”
- holding when an ineffective assistance claim alleges that counsel was deficient in failing to object to the admission of evidence, the defendant must show as part of his claim that the evidence was inadmissible
- holding evidence supporting retaliation finding sufficient where the defendant and witness had committed crime together and therefore, without a doubt, the defendant knew the witness had knowledge of defendant’s participation in a crime

## Opinion text

KELLER, P. J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
We have previously addressed the meaning of “prospective witness.’" In Morrow v. State, we held that the retaliation statute does not require the initiation of official proceedings for one to be a prospective witness. 1 Although the Court does not disturb this holding, it should be noted that its opinion today conflicts with some of the distinctions drawn by Morrow between prospective witnesses and informants. The Court effectively disavows any suggestion in Morrow that a certain level of cooperation or visibility is required for a person with relevant information to become a prospective witness.
I agree with the Court’s analysis and join the Court’s opinion.
. 862 S.W.2d 612, 613 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680682. Public record. Not legal advice.