explaining that law violates ex post facto prohibitions in federal and state constitutions if it “deprives one charged with a crime of any defenses that were available when the act was committed”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that law violates ex post facto prohibitions in federal and state constitutions if it “deprives one charged with a crime of any defenses that were available when the act was committed”
- intervening judicial decision permitting use of deadly weapon finding for "unknown object" allegations was sufficient to rebut presumption of vindictiveness, thus allowing State to seek deadly weapon finding at second trial when one was not sought at first trial
- evidence, not admissible to correct a false= impression regarding defendant’s behavior on drugs when the State asked appellant on cross-examination about his behavior on drugs
- State could not create a false impression on cross-examination in order to open door to extraneous act evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAIRD, J.,
concurs with note. I join the opinion of the Court but note that I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Judge Keller in part II of her concurring and dissenting opinion. Post, 928 S.W.2d at 531. Indeed, I have previously expressed those same concerns. Saenz v. State, 843 S.W.2d 24, 30 (Tex.Cr.App.1992) (Baird, J., concurring and dissenting); and, Abdnor v. State, 808 S.W.2d 476, 478 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (Baird, J., concurring and dissenting). However, my arguments did not carry the day and it is now the strict policy of this Court to have the court of appeals conduct a harm analysis in the first instance. See, Washington v. State, 856 S.W.2d 184, 191 (Tex.Cr. App.1993) (Meyers, J., concurring); and, Saenz, 843 S.W.2d at 29 (Clinton, J., concurring).