Case law

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

Summers v. State

66 Tex. Crim. 551 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 1912

Clearly this is too general to require this court to consider the question. Mansfield v. State, 62 Tex.Crim. Rep., 138 S.W. Rep., 591 ; Luster v. State, 63 Tex.Crim. Rep., 141 S.W. Rep., 214 ; Ryan v. … The testimony of the appellant's witnesses established all these facts overwhelmingly.

Burns v. State

65 Tex. Crim. 175 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 7, 1912

It is also well established that in a homicide case if the facts show that it is either murder in one of the degrees or perfect self-defense, the court is not required and should not submit manslaughter to the jury. … This would clearly have been upon the-weight of the testimony and the court can no more do this against the State than it can against the appellant.

Gonzales, Michael Dean

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 28, 2011

State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 394 (courts should liberally grant challenges for cause: “The venire comprises so many jurors who are clearly qualified that it is unnecessary to err by denying a challenge for cause on a close question … In order to establish that the challenge for cause is proper, the proponent of the challenge must show that the prospective juror understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome personal prejudice well enough

Gonzales, Michael Dean

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 28, 2011

State , 982 S.W.2d 386, 394 (courts should liberally grant challenges for cause: "The venire comprises so many jurors who are clearly qualified that it is unnecessary to err by denying a challenge for cause on a close question … In order to establish that the challenge for cause is proper, the proponent of the challenge must show that the prospective juror understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome personal prejudice well enough

White, Brian Jason

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 13, 2018

During the pretrial hearing on the defense’s motion in limine, defense counsel argued that the audio recording was illegally obtained: It’s clearly a surreptitiously recorded conversation between two people or three … Thus, at trial, the State will be required to offer evidence that the blood was drawn by a qualified person before evidence of the blood, the blood test, and the blood test results are admissible.

Ex parte Ingram

533 S.W.3d 887 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 28, 2017

We conclude, however, that solicitation still qualifies as an “integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute” if the actor is mentally culpable with respect to *899 the solicited person’s age, even if … Penal Code § 8.05(e) ("It is no defense that a person acted at the command or persuasion of his spouse, unless he acted under compulsion that would establish a defense under this section.”). .

Marquez v. State

725 S.W.2d 217 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 14, 1987

Indeed, the evidence clearly shows that no one was involved in the murder other than appellant. This being the case the rules established in Green, supra, do not apply. … The State of Texas has a legitimate interest in obtaining a jury qualified to hear evidence and return verdicts on the entire case.

Sims, Michael

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 8, 2003

The statutory definition of delivery clearly encompasses more than actual, direct transfers. … Even if it had, none of those cases can be interpreted to clearly hold that an intermediary is essential to establishing a constructive transfer.

Garcia v. State

887 S.W.2d 846 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 13, 1994

One of the established exceptions to the warrant and probable cause requirements is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent. See Schneckloth v. … However, when the Court qualified him, the Court qualified him with a hypothetical not involving the class of victims that were involved, but on the hypothetical of treason and, essentially, the answers to questions 1 and

Trevino v. State

815 S.W.2d 592 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 12, 1991

After we have established guilt, okay. All right. “Q. He’s guilty of murder and now you have it. “A. … The record establishes otherwise. During the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress his confession, Detective J.D.

Yarborough v. State

947 S.W.2d 892 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 11, 1997

Batson developed a procedural framework to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. … Tubbs, 155 Ariz. 533 , 747 P.2d 1232, 1236 (App.1987), wherein the Arizona Court of Appeals held "an elusive, intangible explanation for exclusion might not qualify as racially neutral."

Hoffert v. State

623 S.W.2d 141 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 28, 1981

Here Sergeant Beck clearly stated that he had discussed appellant’s reputation with other police officers. In Watson v. … State, 567 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) a police officer was held qualified to testify when his knowledge of appellant’s reputation was based on his “personal investigation and information received from police officers in

Sanders, Del Ray

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 4, 2012

Neither opinion said definitively that the record indisputably established an "intentional" culpable mental state. … The Court found that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish intent.). 40.

Sanders, Del Ray

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 4, 2012

ANALYSIS A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense if the following two- pronged test is satisfied: (1) the lesser offense must qualify as a lesser-included offense of the offense charged … Neither opinion said definitively that the record indisputably established an “intentional” culpable mental state.

Anders v. State

445 S.W.2d 167 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 23, 1969

Massiah is not to be construed as immunizing a defendant from normal investigative technique after indictment, United States v. Edwards, 366 F.2d 853, 873 (2nd Cir., 1966). … It is well established that the “waiver” referred to may be defined as “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 .

Ortiz v. State

834 S.W.2d 343 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 17, 1992

Appellant herself testified, establishing her eligibility for probation and asking the jury to recommend it. … Gripon’s testimony was clearly relevant to appellant’s likely ability to follow the law in the future.

Vestal v. State

83 Tex. Crim. 184 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 13, 1918

That appellant killed deceased, Roscoe Morrell, was clearly proven, and appellant himself swore he killed him. He claimed he killed him in self-defense. … This evidence was clearly admissible. Harris v. State, 62 Texas Crim. Rep., 235 .

Bowley v. State

310 S.W.3d 431 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 5, 2010

Facts A jury convicted Bowley of DWI, enhanced by two prior DWI convictions to a third-degree felony. [2] Bowley qualified as an habitual felony offender, [3] and the jury *433 sentenced him to thirty years' imprisonment. … And, as stated above, it was permissible for the State to establish an alternate inference than Bowley's.

MASSEY, JAMES CALVIN v. the State of Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 26, 2023

Bailey, 691 F.2d at 1017 (“Unlike the situation where in response to unlawful police action the defendant merely reveals a crime that already has been or is being committed, extending the fruits doctrine to immunize a defendant … Although they discuss the “seriousness” of the “new offense” as a consideration in the intervening circumstance factor, none clearly hold that a “new offense” will only be regarded as an intervening circumstance if it is