holding that jurors are presumed to attach common [24] [25] [26] [27]We review motions to suppress understanding of meaning of terms that are not pursuant to a bifurcated standard under which the defined in jury charge
How later courts described this case
- holding that jurors are presumed to attach common [24] [25] [26] [27]We review motions to suppress understanding of meaning of terms that are not pursuant to a bifurcated standard under which the defined in jury charge
- explaining a defendant may suffer no harm by any lack of notice in the indictment even though the indictment in a defendant’s case isn’t sufficiently sufficient when the allegations involve a course of conduct, a single offense, and the motion to quash if overruled, if the defendant received notice of the State’s theory against which he would have to defend
- determining that defendant was not harmed where record showed that he “had actual notice of the capital charge upon which the State was basing its allegations”
- stating that the indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations against him so that he may prepare a defense.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KEASLER, J.,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion with the exception of its resolution of points of error *279 eighteen and nineteen. 1 I would hold that State’s Exhibits 73 and 74, the TDCJ-ID penitentiary packets containing disciplinary reports and hearing records concerning Demetrius Dewayne Smith’s past prison conduct, are business records that do not constitute testimonial hearsay under Crawford v. Washington. 2 , The analysis set out in Ohio v. Roberts 3 controls, and because the records fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, Smith’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated.
. Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871, 887-88 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (Keasler, J., dissenting.).
. 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
. 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).