# Olson v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · November 26, 1969 · 484 S.W.2d 756

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768049

## Case

- **Full name:** Clifford OLSON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** November 26, 1969
- **Citations:** 484 S.W.2d 756; 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1091
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Morrison
- **Judges:** Douglas, Onion
- **Cited by:** 137 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Thomas v. State, 1986 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 877 (1986).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768049

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination in Article I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution, is similar to that of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, overruling prior precedent that granted greater right against compelled self-incriminat…
- holding that the provision of the Texas Constitution that in criminal prosecutions an accused shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself is comparable in scope to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides that no person shall be compelle…
- discussing (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (opinion on motion for rehearing) federal law but then deciding the case under the state ("as to the true scope of the Texas Constitution, we must constitution
- noting further that great weight is to be given the decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning self-incrimination

## Opinion text

*773 MORRISON, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with my brother Onion in all aspects save one.
While the intent of the framers of the Texas Constitution regarding Art. I, Sec. 10, is unknown, the interpretation of that provision is a judicial function and, as my brother Onion acknowledges, a State may surpass minimum federal constitutional requisites. At the time I prepared the opinion for this Court in Trammell v. State, supra, I was fully cognizant of the far-reaching implications to be drawn therefrom. I remain convinced that a taking of blood from an individual without his consent constitutes a violation of his right of privacy and involves an infringement of an accused’s right to be free from self-incrimination under Art. I, Sec. 10, Texas Constitution.
Further, overruling Trammell, supra, is entirely unnecessary in order to reach the result which Judge Onion’s opinion concludes is a proper disposition of this case. This case deals with a taking of a handwriting exemplar while Trammell dealt directly with an invasion of the privacy of the accused person.
I dissent to overruling Trammell v. State, supra.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768049. Public record. Not legal advice.