stating that the Court of Criminal Appeals is not bound by federal constitutional interpretations of the lower circuit courts
How later courts described this case
- stating that the Court of Criminal Appeals is not bound by federal constitutional interpretations of the lower circuit courts
- holding that a less- than-positive identification may be sufficient to corroborate accomplice-witness testimony
- held, as a matter of federal constitutional law compelled by Bullington, supra, because the State failed to sufficiently prove all of the facts necessary to find an enhancement paragraph “true” at the punishment stage of the defendant’s trial, the State was barred from attempting at a new punishment hearing in that cause to prove its original enhancement allegations.
- testimony that accused put his hands “between my legs” sufficient to support indictment alleging accused touched vagina
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Bell v. State, 1999 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 74 (1999)
631 S.W.2d 508, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Bell v. State, 994 S.W.2d 173
Distinguished
Distinguished by C.M.G., Matter Of, 905 S.W.2d 56 (1995)
C.M.G. contends that Cooper and Griffin are distinguishable because there was additional evidence in those cases that also could corroborate the accomplice testimony.
Distinguished by in the Matter of C. M. G. (1995)
C. M. G. contends that Cooper and Griffin are distinguishable because there was
Distinguished by Matter of Cmg, 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 1864 (1995)
C.M.G. contends that Cooper and Griffin are distinguishable because there was additional evidence in those cases that also could corroborate the accomplice testimony.
The opinion
ODOM, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the decision to overrule Porier v. State, 591 S.W.2d 482 , for the reasons stated in the opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in that case. I write today to state that retrial o.f the punishment issue would violate not only the principles upon which Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1 , and Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19 , 98 S.Ct. 2151 , 57 L.Ed.2d 15 , were decided, as held by the majority, but also would deny appellant due course of law under Art. 1, Sec. 19, Texas Constitution. Today’s decision should be grounded on both federal and state constitutional principles.
CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., join this opinion.