# Cates v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · June 7, 1989 · 776 S.W.2d 170

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681229

## Case

- **Full name:** William Curtis CATES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** June 7, 1989
- **Citations:** 776 S.W.2d 170; 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 126; 1989 WL 59560
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Campbell
- **Judges:** Duncan, Teague, Campbell, Davis, White
- **Cited by:** 39 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/9681229

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the evidence gathered by a CPS worker was instrumental to the defendant’s arrest for child abuse

## Opinion text

CAMPBELL, Judge,
concurring.
I wholeheartedly agree with the majority treatment of the core issue in this case. The facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from those in Paez v. State, 681 S.W.2d 34 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). As has been stated by an author with some considerable knowledge of Anglo-American jurisprudence:
“The prior decided case stands only for a point actually necessary to the judgment. Anything else in the opinion is dictum. Even if the rule carefully laid down would lead to the decision in the case and was unmistakably meant to, the case is still ‘distinguishable’ if you can distinguish it on either the facts or the issue.” Llewellyn, Commercial Transactions, pp. 16-17 (1946).”
I write solely for the purpose of examining the other “concurring” opinion in this case. What is it that Judge Teague “concurs” in? What legal principle or principles contained in the majority opinion are embraced by his “concurring” opinion? Does he find the Paez decision distinguishable from that in the instant case? No, indeed! Does Judge Teague conclude that the holding in Paez governs the disposition of the instant case? Yes indeed, he does! In fact Judge Teague concludes that the record clearly supports the Court of Appeals in its conclusion, “and under Paez the statements should have been admissible evidence.” Teague, J., Concurring, slip op. at 7. And yet the majority opinion finds that appellant’s statements were inadmissible. Does this portend that Judge Teague finds comfort in Presiding Judge McCormick’s Dissenting Opinion? Nay, nay! Methinks Judge Teague finds succor (along with the appellant) in the concluding paragraph of the majority opinion. With these comments, I join the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9681229. Public record. Not legal advice.