# Jones v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 5, 2003 · 119 S.W.3d 766

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730121

## Case

- **Full name:** Quintin Phillippe JONES, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 5, 2003
- **Citations:** 119 S.W.3d 766; 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 712; 2003 WL 22510452
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Womack
- **Judges:** Cochran, Meyers, Price, Hervey, Holcomb, Keller, Keasler, Womack, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 272 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/9730121

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that defendant failed to establish that he was forced to take an objectionable juror as a result of trial court=s denial of application for writs of attachment requiring appearance of prospective jurors, and thus denial of application did not constitute reversible e…
- holding second, warned statement that repeated first unwarned statement inadmissible because waiver of rights given in connection with second statement was not constitutionally valid in light of circumstances and entire course of police conduct, but finding error in admission …
- holding that, to demonstrate injury resulting from trial court’s failure to grant attachment, defendant must demonstrate that he was forced to accept “objectionable juror,” or juror “against whom such cause for challenge exists as would likely affect [the juror’s] competency o…
- holding that “the mere passage of time does not, by itself, automatically obviate prior Miranda warnings,” but the totality of the circumstances will determine whether additional warnings were required
- holding that Athe mere passage of time does not, by itself, automatically obviate prior Miranda warnings,@ but the totality of the circumstances will determine whether additional warnings were required

## Opinion text

WOMACK, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion in which JOHNSON, J., joined.
With all respect to the Members of the Court who have decided otherwise, I would not conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the constitutional violation in admitting the appellant’s confessions to two additional murders at the punishment stage of this capital trial did not contribute to the jury’s verdict for capital punishment. I would sustain the appellant’s first point, *804 affirm the judgment of guilt, and remand this case for a new punishment hearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9730121. Public record. Not legal advice.