stating that there is no coercion where appellant testified that he knew what he was doing but would not have been so easily persuaded had he not been intoxicated
How later courts described this case
- stating that there is no coercion where appellant testified that he knew what he was doing but would not have been so easily persuaded had he not been intoxicated
- appellate presumption that court’s instruction to disregard will be obeyed by jury
- arrest and subsequent questioning does not initiate adverse judicial proceedings
- “The central question is the extent to which appellant was deprived of his faculties due to the intoxication.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Harris v. State, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 164 (1989)
754 S.W.2d 185, 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Harris v. State, 784 S.W.2d 5, 19 (Tex. Crim.
Overruled on other grounds by Green v. State, 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 7 (1989)
754 S.W.2d 185, 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), overruled on other grounds by Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242
Overruled in part by Butler v. State, 1992 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 116 (1992)
To the extent Rougeau and Nichols conflict with the holding in this ease and Johnson, they are overruled.
The opinion
TEAGUE, J.,
dissents to the disposition of point of error number 5 (Lane’s brief), which concerns the trial judge’s erroneous sua sponte excusal of prospective juror Terry Hurzeler.