holding appellant’s testimony that he was “emotionally hurt and 9 Moreover, there is no requirement that evidence admitted at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial be reoffered to be considered at punishment. Trevino, 100 S.W.3d at 238 . 16 mad at the time he raised his rifle” and feared for his life when he “saw two men with weapons drawn coming toward him” was sufficient to require a sudden-passion instruction
How later courts described this case
- holding appellant’s testimony that he was “emotionally hurt and 9 Moreover, there is no requirement that evidence admitted at the guilt/innocence phase of the trial be reoffered to be considered at punishment. Trevino, 100 S.W.3d at 238 . 16 mad at the time he raised his rifle” and feared for his life when he “saw two men with weapons drawn coming toward him” was sufficient to require a sudden-passion instruction
- concluding that there was no prosecutorial misconduct warranting a mistrial by the prosecutor’s questioning of a witness regarding photographs that were ruled inadmissible, where the prosecutor ceased doing so upon the trial court’s order
- holding appellant's testimony he was “emotionally hurt and mad at the time he raised his rifle” and feared for his life when he “saw two men with weapons drawn coming toward him” was sufficient to require sudden passion instruction
- holding no error where exculpatory evidence was allegedly withheld from defense because defendant had independent knowledge of the evidence and evidence had been broadcast on a local radio station
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON, J.,
adhering to views expressed in his dissenting opinions in James v. State, supra, and Stewart v. State, 686 S.W.2d 118, at 125-126 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), and disagreeing with treatment of points 17-21 and 11, respectfully dissents.
TEAGUE, J., dissents on point of error # 23.
DUNCAN, J., not participating.