# Havard v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 28, 1990 · 800 S.W.2d 195

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763214

## Case

- **Full name:** Patrick Curtis HAVARD, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 28, 1990
- **Citations:** 800 S.W.2d 195; 1989 WL 62567
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clinton
- **Judges:** Campbell, Clinton, Miller, Teague, Duncan, Davis, Sturns, Berchelmann
- **Cited by:** 197 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/9763214

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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
- concluding that State had no duty to disclose existence of the defendant’s own statement to law enforcement contained in an offense report

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763214. Public record. Not legal advice.