Case law

Garcia, Gustavo Julian

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 12, 2003

It is well settled that improper remarks can be rendered harmless by an instruction to disregard by the trial judge, unless it appears the evidence was so clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury or is of such … To establish an abuse of discretion, there must be a showing that the defendant was actually prejudiced by the denial of his motion. Id. Appellant's argument is similar to one raised before this Court in Lopez v.

MidCon Compression, L.L.C. v. Reeves County Appraisal District and Loving County Appraisal District

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 23, 2015

that the compressor packages qualified as heavy equipment. … “The phrase ‘as may be provided by law,’ when used in a constitutional provision establishing a general legal principle or administrative framework, has been held to ‘clearly vest[ ] the Legislature with the authority

Strong v. State

70 Tex. Crim. 89 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 16, 1913

established. … It can be no more held to establish the asserted pleaded fact than can the allegations in an indictment alleging a certain state of fact establish such fact. It is merely the basis for introducing proof to establish it.

Layton, Daniel

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 4, 2009

Appellant qualified the statement by saying that he had taken Valium at 2 p.m. the previous afternoon, but had not taken any Xanax since the day before. … App. 1992), "all the party has to do to avoid the forfeiture of a complaint on appeal is to let the trial judge know what he wants, why he thinks he is entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand

Chambliss v. State

647 S.W.2d 257 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 16, 1983

Grammatically speaking, it might seem that the clause, “that has a bearing upon the credibility of the accused as a witness,” qualifies or restricts only the immediately preceding words, “or of a voluntary statement, whether … No fifth amendment claim is made, and appellant does not assert that Miranda is applicable here; clearly, it is not. 3 .

Wallace v. State

467 S.W.2d 608 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 17, 1971

He points to the testimony of the arresting officer that "as a habit" he always searched a vehicle after finding the driver had no operator's license, though the officer later qualified the answer by saying he always did … At the outset the State contends the appellant introduced evidence at the trial on the merits which established his guilt and that he is in no position to complain of the admissibility of other evidence of his guilt, which

Williams, Ex Parte Arthur Lee

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 13, 2012

In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, applicant must establish the two Strickland prongs by showing (1) that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and (2) that applicant was prejudiced … Applicable Law In order to establish prejudice, a defendant need not “show ‘that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome’ of his penalty proceeding”; rather, he need only “establish

Arnold v. State

873 S.W.2d 27 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 10, 1993

Sossamon involved an agreement for immunity from prosecution. In Jacobs v. … Appellant’s brief fails to clearly explain and analyze this assertion, and is subject to challenge on that basis.

McCallum v. State

686 S.W.2d 132 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 9, 1985

Ill, § 36.02 (Check List of Elements Necessary to Establish Offense). As observed, there are several different modes of committing the offense under Subsection (a)(2). … As we have seen, none of that testimony establishes the essential elements of the mode of the offense charged against the appellant under § 36.02(a)(2).

Garcia v. State

919 S.W.2d 370 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 27, 1996

Clearly, the written statement contains the warnings required by Article 38.22, § 2(a). … On that day about ten prospective jurors were qualified and received instructions from the court.

Ruiz v. State

457 S.W.2d 894 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 23, 1970

Such bold statement or belief is further qualified by the second paragraph of the affidavit in question. All of this was so well explained by Mr. Justice White in his separate concurring opinion in Spinelli v. … It is also well established that probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant cannot be bolstered by the results of fruits of the subsequent search. Wong Sun v.

Britton v. State

578 S.W.2d 685 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 21, 1979

It appears that the majority is qualifying this to mean that he must not only be intoxicated to the degree required, but that it be under circumstances wherein he is likely to endanger himself or another. … The evidence set forth in the majority opinion clearly shows that appellant was very intoxicated and this evidence is certainly sufficient to show probable cause for the officer to arrest him for the offense of public intoxication

Funderburg v. State

717 S.W.2d 637 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 8, 1986

Funderburg, that is pretty good proof right there that you are not qualified to represent yourself. Are you telling me you don't want any help from a lawyer? "THE DEFENDANT: I'm saying I would like to represent myself. … In considering the purported formal bills of exception, I believe this Court is establishing bad precedent that will in the future come back to haunt it.

Malone v. State

919 S.W.2d 410 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 28, 1996

But the Court has effectively qualified this privilege by holding that it fails when the evidence establishes a prima facie case that the strikes were racially motivated. … A trial court's ruling on a Batson motion will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

Ex Parte Francis

72 Tex. Crim. 304 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 4, 1914

No rule of construction is better established, both on principle and authority, than that Acts of the Legislature are presumed to be constitutional until the contrary is clearly shown. … Education, enlightenment and advanced thought have enabled us to more clearly perceive the truth taught therein.

Azeez v. State

248 S.W.3d 182 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 5, 2008

other hand, in Ludwig we also identified another punctuation convention, that “[g]enerally, a comma should precede a conjunction connecting two coordinate clauses or phrases in a statute in order to prevent the following qualifying … violation, and who agreed to sign a promise to appear in lieu of being taken immediately before a magistrate, was nevertheless initially “arrested” and then released from “custody” once he signed the citation. 30 Later cases established

Pierson v. State

614 S.W.2d 102 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 29, 1981

(Emphasis added) Clearly, these two decisions leave to the states the proper procedure to be followed when a death penalty must be set aside. … Penal Code, Secs. 19.02 and 12.32, at least initially the jury to be selected in a capital murder case is not necessarily one qualified to assess a punishment fixed by law, but is actually a jury qualified to assess a rather

Pannell v. State

666 S.W.2d 96 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 29, 1984

Once as many as twelve persons so summoned were in court, the judge or one acting under direction of the judge shall proceed to qualify each prospective grand juror, Articles 19.21-26, and impanel twelve of them. … This was clearly a violation of the law as contained in DR 7-104. Also see Henrich v. State, supra , and compare, Brewer v. State, 649 S.W.2d 628 (Tex.Cr. App.1983).

Gardner v. State

306 S.W.3d 274 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 21, 2009

Although a juror who will ultimately be guided by his personal beliefs rather than the law is not a qualified juror, 67 Mr. … The Texas position was in accord with established common law.

In Re the State of Texas Ex Rel. Brian W. Wice, Relator

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 14, 2023

And as we have clearly established in Ex parte Watson, venue is not a category-one Marin right: “Unlike jurisdiction, venue may be acquired by consent.” Ex parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350, 351 (Tex. Crim. … establishes’ the proposition of law on which relief is predicated.” 103 In this case, mandamus is clearly warranted because of what is bindingly 102F dictated by all three—the second stretching centuries