finding no unfair surprise where appellant complained of lack of notice that the State intended to prove the murder weapon was a brick found at the murder scene when the indictment alleged and the evidence established that a hammer was the murder weapon
How later courts described this case
- finding no unfair surprise where appellant complained of lack of notice that the State intended to prove the murder weapon was a brick found at the murder scene when the indictment alleged and the evidence established that a hammer was the murder weapon
- holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellant’s argument, which was an incorrect statement of law and not an argument he was entitled to make
- noting that the Court held “numerous times” that 11 evidence is sufficient to prove murder “in the course of” committing robbery in a capital murder case if the State proves that the robbery occurred immediately after the murder
- stating that a court reviews the alleged argument error in light of the facts adduced at trial and in the context of the entire argument
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEAGUE, J.,
concurs in disposition of appellant’s fourteenth point of error. See Teague v. Lane, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989).