explaining that double-jeopardy provisions from United States Constitution and Texas Constitution “provide substantially identical protections”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that double-jeopardy provisions from United States Constitution and Texas Constitution “provide substantially identical protections”
- holding that the proper remedy after a finding of prosecutorial misconduct is a reversal of conviction and remand for new trial
- noting the Court’s long-standing precedent holding that the double-jeopardy provisions of both constitutions provide “substantially identical protections”
- reiterating “that the Texas and United States constitutions’ double jeopardy provisions provide substantially identical protections”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Criticized by John Hamilton Leib, Jr. v. State (2002)
and Mitchell have been criticized:
The opinion
PRICE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the denial of applicant’s motion for rehearing. According to our “hand down” sheet, this Court granted all six of applicant’s grounds for review. However, a review of our voting record indicates that a majority of this Court agreed to grant review on only the two grounds addressed in the opinion; the implication in the “hand down” sheet to the contrary was due to a clerical error. Therefore, we need not address applicant’s other grounds for review.