Unless the venireman was clearly instructed on what the law requires, it cannot be said that he could not follow the law
How later courts described this case
- Unless the venireman was clearly instructed on what the law requires, it cannot be said that he could not follow the law
- no violation of rights when defendant invoked right to silence and counsel, then initiated conversation and confessed to police officer
- trial court did not abuse discretion in restricting defendant from asking improperly phrased question during voir dire
- evidence of a "disruptive family” or a "tragic family life” addressed within the scope of the special issues
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLINTON and MALONEY, JJ.,
dissent for reasons given in James v. State, 805 S.W.2d 415, 417, n. 3 , (Tex.Crim.App.1990) and in Ex parte Goodman, 816 S.W.2d 383 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). They further dissent for the reasons given in Boyd v. State, 811 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); Boggess v. State (Tex.Cr.App., No. 69,990, delivered May 29, 1991), and Lackey v. State, 816 S.W.2d 392 (Tex.Cr.App.1991).
BAIRD, J., not participating.