# Lawton v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 17, 1996 · 913 S.W.2d 542

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767526

## Case

- **Full name:** Stacey Lamont LAWTON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 17, 1996
- **Citations:** 913 S.W.2d 542; 1995 WL 713023
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Clinton
- **Judges:** Meyers, Baird, Clinton, Maloney, Overstreet, Mansfield
- **Cited by:** 469 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Mosley v. State, 1998 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 86 (1998).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767526

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767526. Public record. Not legal advice.