discussing Trammell v. State, 445 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), and indicating that recent prior conduct of eluding police would satisfy escape requirement
How later courts described this case
- discussing Trammell v. State, 445 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), and indicating that recent prior conduct of eluding police would satisfy escape requirement
- reversing a lower court opinion which had held that escape was shown when the defendant was merely leaving one place to go to another
- implicitly disapproving officers’ untested assumption that they could not obtain an arrest warrant in time because the courthouse was closed
- where the defendant did not know his cohorts had been apprehended or that his residence was staked out by the police
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Morelos v. State, 1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 1317 (1989)
743 S.W.2d at 236, that case is also distinguishable.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Judge,
concurring.
Although the arrest of appellant would clearly pass constitutional muster, the strict application of Article 14.04, V.A.C. C.P., dictates a different result. Since the Legislature has chosen to allow Article 14.-04, supra, to continue as part of our jurisprudence without clarifying what is intended by the “about to escape” provisions, the courts of this State will continue to wrestle with the problem. The instant case vividly demonstrates the need for such legislative clarification.
With these remarks, I concur in the judgment of the Court.