# Ransom v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · April 24, 1996 · 920 S.W.2d 288

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771738

## Case

- **Full name:** Cedric Lamont RANSOM, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** April 24, 1996
- **Citations:** 920 S.W.2d 288; 1996 WL 71516
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** Baird, Mansfield, Clinton, Maloney, Campbell, Keller, White, Meyers
- **Cited by:** 335 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771738

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that under article 44.29(c) "voir dire error regarding a subject that a jury would consider only during the punishment phase of trial is `error affecting punishment only' unless the defendant produces evidence showing that the error necessarily produced a jury biased a…
- holding that State's erroneously granted challenge for cause was not "error affecting punishment only" under article 44.29(c) because "the erroneous elimination of a venireperson conceivably affects the composition of the jury, which sits at both guilt and punishment
- holding that evidence of assault on prosecutor and defense counsel in courtroom admissible as consciousness of guilt without violating rule 404(b)
- holding attempts to tamper with a witness, and any criminal act designed to reduce the likelihood of prosecution, constitutes evidence of “consciousness of guilt” on the part of the defendant
- holding criminal acts designed to reduce the likelihood of conviction, including threats against witnesses, are admissible under Rule 404(b) as showing “consciousness of guilt”

## Opinion text

*297 McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Adhering to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Garrett v. State, 851 S.W.2d 853, 861 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), I dissent to the sustaining of appellant’s first point of error. I furthermore dissent to the majority’s conclusion that prospective juror Freeman was not subject to a challenge for cause based upon his views in opposition to the death penalty.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771738. Public record. Not legal advice.