holding that courts should not decide the proper application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel solely on the basis of the self-serving declarations and opinions of counsel
How later courts described this case
- holding that courts should not decide the proper application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel solely on the basis of the self-serving declarations and opinions of counsel
- discussing with approval court of appeal’s review of double jeopardy claim
- "When a 'fact is not necessarily determined in a former trial, the possibility that it may have been does not prevent re-examination of that issue.’ "
- the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibits the State from relitigating issues
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, J.,
concurs with note: “I concur in the result reached in disposing of appellant’s ‘preliminary claim’ (page 249). I would prefer a ‘same offense’ analysis more along the lines of January v. State, 695 S.W.2d 215 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1985), approved by this Court in January v. State, 732 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). I join the rest of the majority opinion.”
TEAGUE, J., dissents.