Case law

East v. State

702 S.W.2d 606 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 24, 1985

Each of these three prospective jurors clearly stated that they would disregard the evidence presented and vote in such a way as to thwart the assessment of the death penalty. … Appellant argues that the opinion testimony of these individuals was inadmissible in that their opinions invaded the province of the jury, no proper predicate had been laid and the witnesses were not shown to be qualified

Powell v. Hocker

516 S.W.3d 488 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 5, 2017

Respondent acknowledges that "Section 22.221 (establishing a [court of appeals’] mandamus jurisdiction) clearly falls within the purview of Section 21.009’s definitions.” … V, § 15 ("There shall be established in each county in this State a County Court, which shall be a court of record ...”), . See Tex. Const. art.

EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Loving County Appraisal District

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 23, 2015

§ 23.1242(b)(establishing formula for calculating the unit property tax of each item of heavy equipment)(West 2015). … “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 to

Wood v. State

78 Tex. Crim. 654 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 1916

That of the State was amply sufficient, if believed by the jury, to clearly justify the verdict. It evidently was believed by the jury. … Her testimony clearly tends to show the reverse of this.

Jamey Justin Smith v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 3, 2015

A trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. Snyder v. La, 552 U.S. at 477; Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d at 325. Gibson v. … When the State challenged that the venire member 15 was a sixty-nine year old female who did not even know Appellant’s counsel based on her answers at voir dire, Appellant qualified his response with the statement that

Mendez, John Bustamante

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 30, 2004

We agree with the lower court that this language clearly does not contemplate a forfeiture of the statutory right from a mere failure to object at trial. … "Now, whenever a fact is to be found by a jury, upon the truth of which the life and liberty of the citizen depends, and the testimony of an accomplice is relied upon to establish the truth of such fact, the rule contained

Van Hoang v. State

939 S.W.2d 593 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 20, 1996

State, 395 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex.Crim.App.1965)(holding State established offense committed at time not barred by limitations). … Unless this Court is willing to disavow or qualify its holding in Cooper, supra, I am constrained to agree with the majority that when the indictment alleges an offense that was not committed within the limitation period,

Ex parte Moore

548 S.W.3d 552 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 6, 2018

The habeas court found the experts qualified to testify about intellectual disability generally and credible as to their conclusions in this case. … In my view, applicant has clearly established that he meets the definition for intellectual disability based on the views of credible experts applying the current medical criteria.

Jamey Justin Smith v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 3, 2015

A trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. Snyder v. La, 552 U.S. at 477; Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d at 325. Gibson v. … When the State challenged that the venire member 15 was a sixty-nine year old female who did not even know Appellant’s counsel based on her answers at voir dire, Appellant qualified his response with the statement that

Burg, James Allan Ii

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 29, 2020

“Here, the trial court went outside the range of punishment established by the Legislature in section 521.344 of the Texas Transportation Code.” 11 And, the issue of whether the trial court levied an unauthorized sentence … These things are clearly “in” the closed curve of things that can make a “sentence” legal 33 State v. Kersh, 127 S.W.3d 775, 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

Taylor v. State

268 S.W.3d 571 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 29, 2008

abused its discretion; before the reviewing court may reverse the trial court’s decision, it must find the trial court’s ruling was so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable people might disagree … Fed.R.Evid. 803(4) advisory committee notes ("Statements as to fault would not ordinarily qualify [as a statement for purposes of diagnosis or treatment].

Trevino v. State

841 S.W.2d 385 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 14, 1992

This motion was denied by the trial court and the record reflects that the state used its preemptory challenges to strike all the qualified black members of the venire. … Principles of federalism quite properly allow Texas courts and the courts of other states to establish their own rules of procedural default.

Nethery v. State

692 S.W.2d 686 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 1985

Stockman testified that she told appellant the police were there and that the police car was clearly visible. The evidence is sufficient to prove that appellant knew *699 McCarthy was a police officer. Cf. Bush v. … She was qualified to testify to appellant’s reputation. Mitchell, supra. The ground of error is overruled.

Thomas, Heather

408 S.W.3d 877 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 25, 2013

Exhibit 1 was a laboratory analysis establishing the substance to be marijuana, and Exhibits 2 through 9 were photographs of the marijuana. … of the right to raise on appeal the error that was previously preserved.15 Although this waiver principle has come under some criticism, the appellant does not argue today that we should abolish it—only that we should qualify

Simer v. State

62 Tex. Crim. 514 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 31, 1911

variance when on the trial proof of the theft of only one of the articles or horses is established and there is no proof about the others. … In this, I think, the court is clearly wrong.

Ex Parte Gray

64 Tex. Crim. 311 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 6, 1911

"Section 19, article 1: `No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised except by the due course of the law of the land.' … , whom we termed president, were clearly defined.

Trial v. State

84 Tex. Crim. 16 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 3, 1917

The jury were clearly justified in finding and believing that. *19 she had so told him and that he knew it before he married her. … The court qualified these bills by stating that the attorneys for the State withdrew their objections to said testimony.

May v. State

618 S.W.2d 333 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 20, 1981

Clearly, neither the prosecutor nor the trial judge felt that the limitations on exclusion established by Witherspoon constituted “the test” in Texas, in view of the approved application of § 12.31(b), supra, by this Court … HOUSE: I think he qualifies. MR.

McGee v. State

774 S.W.2d 229 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 15, 1989

State, 724 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1986): In capital murder cases, if the trial court improperly sustains a State’s challenge for cause and excludes a qualified juror, over a defendant’s objection, reversible error arises … Reviewing these criteria, we find appellant has clearly not shown purposeful discrimination by the prosecutor in the use of his peremptory strikes.

Ross v. State

71 Tex. Crim. 493 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1913

The court, in qualifying the bill, stated that the county attorney stated to the court that he desired to confer with this witness and the court told him he would give him one minute; that the consultation between the county … Then in two other paragraphs he told them that the burden of proof was on the State; that the defendant was presumed to be innocent until his guilt was established by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they