# 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/9771740

## 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:** Concurrence by Mansfield
- **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/9771740

## 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

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
I join the well-written and well-reasoned opinion of the Court. While I believe that Garrett v. State, 851 S.W.2d 853 (Tex.Crim.App.1993), was wrongfully decided, it is, unless and until overruled, the law. I agree that the majority’s holding that Garrett error is “error affecting punishment only” is correct in light of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Witherspoon, Bumper, Wainwright, and this Court’s holdings in Cuevas and Jones.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771740. Public record. Not legal advice.