holding that the trial court did not err in failing to quash an indictment because it allegedly contained erroneous alternative theories of the offense when the evidence supported the defendant’s conviction under another theory
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court did not err in failing to quash an indictment because it allegedly contained erroneous alternative theories of the offense when the evidence supported the defendant’s conviction under another theory
- holding that the critical factor in determining when a statement is an excited utterance is whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the event
- holding that, if violence occurs after offender has abandoned theft and is escaping, no intent to control property during escape need be shown
- holding that Article 33.03 does not necessarily apply to every pre-trial hearing that concerns a prospective juror
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Mosley v. State, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 86 (1998)
913 S.W.2d 542, 554, 558, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (failure to adequately brief 16 issue, either by failing to specifically argue and analyze one’s position or provide authorities and record citations, waives any error on appeal), overruled on other grounds by Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249
The opinion
CLINTON, J.,
dissents to the arguendo treatment and disposition of points three, four and five. Section 30.02 identifies “burglary” as a discrete offense, servmg to protect agamst intrusion in special places where people expect to be free from such an intrusion. Sections 30.03 and 30.04 particularly describe “machines” and “veMcles” as subjects. When the Legislature used “burglary” alone in in Section 30.02, it meant what it said. Moreover, murder committed in the course of theft is not capital murder. See slip opinion n. 6.
OVERSTREET, J., not participating.