Case law

Doyle v. State

59 Tex. Crim. 39 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 16, 1910

The evidence that appellant was discovered in *44 the retail establishment of Albert Mangold, it being a part of the same house separated only by a partition wall, and the fact that the wholesale establishment afforded evidence … It was not only therefore admissible, but it was a part of the case, and a necessary part, at least it was clearly admissible testimony in the case, and the court did not err in refusing to charge it out of the case. 7.

Day v. State

123 Tex. Crim. 9 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 22, 1933

the trial court in over *11 ruling appellant’s second application for a continuance, which was predicated on the ground that appellant’s attorney was suffering with a throat infection that made it difficult for him to be clearly … As thus qualified, the bill does not present error.

State v. Edmond

933 S.W.2d 120 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 2, 1996

It begins its argument by citing a “well-established English grammatical principle” that qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to words or phrases immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending … Indeed, these constitutional concerns also establish that the State’s rule of construction—the doctrine of the “last antecedent”—has no application by its OAvn terms.

Halprin, Randy Ethan

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 6, 2024

Where the judge is not impartial, the error is structural and immune to harmless error analysis. … • When Cunningham’s daughter dated a Jewish man after the establishment of the trust, Cunningham disapproved.

Manning v. State

37 Tex. Crim. 180 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 17, 1897

As thus construed, this portion of the charge was clearly erroneous. … We also believe that the witness, David Braden, qualified himself to testify as to the handwriting of Mrs.

Perry v. State

703 S.W.2d 668 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 5, 1986

We also find that the appellant has not shown or established that he had any cause, justification, or excuse for not challenging or objecting in the trial court to the out of court identification procedure or the in court … This Court held that such was “clearly error”, and that “the error cannot be waived because the statute is too clear and absolute to be held subject to waiver,” (743).

Webb v. State

63 Tex. Crim. 207 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1911

The indictment contains three counts Each count was by a separate paragraph, with the proper beginning' and ending, showing clearly that it was a separate count, although not numbered so by the grand jury in returning the … In fact, we think it clearly shows that appellant did and said all with which he was charged in the first and second counts of the indictment.

Porier v. State

591 S.W.2d 482 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 3, 1979

The Court wrote: "It is Congress, and not the prosecution, which establishes and defines offenses. Few, if any, limitations are imposed on the Double Jeopardy Clause on the legislative power to define offenses. Brown v. … If the trial court had directed the only verdict allowable under the evidence presented, then clearly appellant could not be subjected to the second trial of the issue that the majority allows.

Ramey, Ex Parte Ker'sean Olajuwa

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 7, 2012

This clearly emphasized Dr. … Coons’s testimony from a qualified expert.

Ramey, Ex Parte Ker'sean Olajuwa

382 S.W.3d 396 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 7, 2012

This clearly emphasized Dr. … Also, as our dissenting opinion further shows, the harm created by his testimony was clearly established in this case using the same analysis this Court used in Coble . 4. 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. Crim.

Alsobrook v. State

134 Tex. Crim. 322 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 16, 1938

Appellants' bill of exception No. 3 is also qualified by the court, and as thus qualified leaves practically nothing of the original bill, and seems to us to reflect no error. … This testimony, so the trial court says, was not objected to, but had it been, in our opinion same was so clearly admissible that no argument could be made to the contrary.

Washburn v. State

167 Tex. Crim. 125 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 17, 1958

They did not tend to establish any issue in the case. If they were admissible, then it was because when taken *636 in connection with other facts they tended to establish some issue in the case. … Three of them were clearly admissible, were not objected to, and showed the full extent of the bomb damage.

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 7, 2015

Indeed, the Court held that, “even if the City were not immune from suit for breach of a contract whose subject lies within its proprietary functions, the Tooke’s contract does not qualify.” Id. at 344. … The Texas Tort Claims Act (“TCA”) establishes certain waivers of governmental immunity. Likes, 962 S.W.2d at 494. The entity remains immune unless waived by the TCA. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 225.

Mitchell v. State

524 S.W.2d 510 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1975

The officer was not disqualified, however, when it was established on re-direct that he had discussed appellant’s reputation with other officers after the date of the offense. … And the in-court identification of appellant by the eyewitness to the shooting was clearly shown to be based on the witness’ independent recollection of the events in question.

Ex Parte Flake

67 Tex. Crim. 216 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1911

The Act in question reads as follows: “In all counties, justice precincts, towns, cities or other subdivisions of a county where the qualified voters thereof have by a majority vote determined that the sale of intoxicating … The presumption must always be in favor of the validity of the laws, unless the contrary is clearly demonstrated.

Parker v. State

81 Tex. Crim. 397 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 30, 1917

On the contrary, it clearly justified him to believe and find that there was nothing to prevent him from obtaining a fair and impartial trial in that county and from obtaining a qualified jury of fair and impartial jurors … The court in qualifying appellant’s bill on the subject .states that it was the alleged circulation of this report by the deceased which led to the killing. This testimony was clearly admissible.

Wenck v. State

156 Tex. Crim. 50 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 14, 1951

I have not been abused, whipped, threatened or promised immunity from prosecution of the law by any one.” … This bill was qualified by the trial court who certifies that the only ground of objection urged at the time the witness testified was that it was not shown that the witness was qualified to give such opinion.

Graham v. State

73 Tex. Crim. 28 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 4, 1914

As qualified clearly the bill shows no error. We think it was a legitimate argument and especially so as being in reply to appellant’s counsel’s argument. *32 There are several complaints of the court’s charge. … The -charge of the court that we have copied above, we think clearly refutes all of these exceptions.

State v. Toney

979 S.W.2d 642 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 7, 1998

flawed reasoning, lack of authority, or misplaced reliance upon cited authorities, (2) when the precedent flowing from the decision conflicts with other, newer precedent, (3) when the justifications proffered for the rale established … Moreover, the reasoning in Cain is clearly at odds with the reasoning in Sodipo .

Graham v. State

657 S.W.2d 99 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 20, 1983

See Articles 49.03 and 49.25, V.A.C.C.P. 5 .Records that are compiled in an unreliable fashion will almost invariably fail to qualify under the records exceptions to the hearsay rule. E.g., Porter, supra. … The record which does technically qualify, but is nevertheless unreliable is an aberration. See, e.g., Coulter v. State, 494 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). 6 .