Case law

Ford, Ross Layton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 21, 2009

—Austin 2000, pet. ref’d) (under Rule 104(a) trial court has discretion to determine if expert witnesses are qualified). … Unfortunately, appellant never appealed the issue of whether the facts contained in Deputy Halcomb’s report established probable cause.

Cook v. State

124 Tex. Crim. 570 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 14, 1933

The court qualified the bill with the following statement: “When the State asked the question, as shown in this bill, to-wit: ‘He told you the name of the other negro that was with him the night that he raped the young woman … About all it does establish is that he was in jail when the baby was born, and that the witnesses knew nothing about appellant being arrested on account of stealing sheep.

Gray v. State

268 S.W. 941 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 18, 1924

It occurs to us that in establishing the motive, all declarations and all efforts of the appellant to rid himself of Ballard as a witness, and that the inducements offered to'the father or to others to obtain that end were … The evidence clearly brought the transaction ■within the-law of principals as defined by the statutes. Articles 74, 78, P. C.; Middleton v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 307 , 217 S. W. 1046 ; Sapp v. State, 87 Tex. Cr.

Coleman, Lakeith Lawayne

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 29, 2004

North , 900 F.2d 131 (8 th Cir. 1990) (unloaded shotgun, antique cap and ball pistol, and inoperable .22 rifle found in drug defendant's son's bedroom did not qualify for firearm enhancement because: (1) the antique pistol … Hernandez , 187 F.3d 806, 808-09 (8 th Cir. 1999) (trial court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's unloaded shotgun in truck's sleeping compartment was unconnected to his offense of transporting 300 pounds of

Smith v. State

81 Tex. Crim. 368 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 23, 1917

Yarbrough and that these occurrences were known to appellant was established beyond controversy. … The court in that case recognized the fact that under the established rule remarks of this character are reversible only when they are prejudicial.

Davis v. State

313 S.W.3d 317 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 16, 2010

Appellant argues that the State did not establish with any degree of specificity how the doctors were qualified to testify as to their opinions regarding appellant’s future dangerousness and failed to carry its burden of … He acknowledges this right as qualified by the requirement that the evidence be relevant and not excluded by an established evidentiary rule.

Richards v. State

53 Tex. Crim. 400 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 29, 1908

It will be readily seen that this last statement was not called for by the facts of the case, and was clearly obiter dicta. … The case presented many issues, and was indeed one difficult to present clearly und intelligently.

Kirby v. State

68 Tex. Crim. 63 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 19, 1912

After qualifying himself as an expert, he said defendant detailed pretty thoroughly and extensively the circumstances and various things leading up to the murder, beginning back at his home on the farm, and the various happenings … He is presumed to entertain, until this appears, a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts; and to establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing

Cook v. State

741 S.W.2d 928 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 9, 1987

Immunity was granted *947 several persons. An indictment was returned September 19, 1977. Transactional immunity was granted to James B. Taylor, uncle of appellant. A "reindictment" was presented November 7, 1977. … "Here, respondent's Sixth Amendment right to counsel clearly had attached when Dr.

COCKRELL, RAY LEE v. the State of Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Aug 20, 2025

The Legislature was concerned that “[i]n many child abuse cases where a parent beats a child, the offense does not qualify as serious bodily injury.” House Comm. on Crim. … And in 1993, the Legislature established a new felony category, the state-jail felony, and reclassified Section 22.04 offenses accordingly. See Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff.

Gray v. State

99 Tex. Crim. 305 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 18, 1924

It occurs to us that in establishing the motive, all declarations and all efforts of the appellant to rid himself of Ballard as a witness and that the inducements offered to the father or to others to obtain that end were … The evidence clearly brought the transaction within the law of principals as defined by the statutes. Arts. 74, 78, P. C., Middleton v. State, 86 Texas Crim. Rep. 307 ; Sapp v. State, 223 S. W. Rep. 459 .

Fisher v. State

887 S.W.2d 49 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 19, 1994

Noting that “[n]o principle of due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge,” the Supreme Court held that “to conform … As a result of discussions with the doctors’ organization, petitioner agreed to sponsor during the 1985 session, legislation which would grant foreign doctors immunity from state licensure by virtue of their years of experience

State v. Rosenbaum

852 S.W.2d 525 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 5, 1993

Because of 44.01(d) we held that "the phrase `make an appeal' clearly requires... the prosecuting attorney to personally supervise and authorize the appeals to be undertaken by his office on behalf of the State." Id. … They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused."

Andrews v. State

652 S.W.2d 370 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 22, 1983

Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , 89 S.Ct. 1243 , 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969), the Federal constitution does not immunize those properly convicted from the sanctions imposed. *373 Bryers v. State, 480 S.W.2d 712, 716 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). … Nevertheless, we have done so and find the evidence clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict finding appellant guilty.

Coffman v. State

73 Tex. Crim. 295 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 18, 1914

We think we are justified clearly in concluding that appellant thought he had a reversible error. … The court qualified appellant’s bills on this subject to the effect that he admitted this testimony *312 for the purpose of showing relationship and state of feelings between the defendant and his deceased wife for a period

Britton, Christopher Chad

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 8, 2004

Just so we know, state clearly, why would you have a problem taking the oath? A. Because I'm against the death penalty. … Although the questions about probation came immediately thereafter, the probation questions were not clearly asked in the context of the same hypothetical.

Brooks v. State

323 S.W.3d 893 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 6, 2010

Instead, it is a qualified deference to the jury's apparent assessment of the weight, credibility, or reliability of the (admittedly legally sufficient) evidence. … We have used qualifiers such as "due" ( Marshall v. State, 210 S.W.3d 618, 625 (Tex.Crim.App.2006)) and "appropriate" ( Clewis v.

Ramirez v. State

815 S.W.2d 636 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 19, 1991

Clearly, appellant was not prevented from arguing the evidence of appellant’s bad childhood, economic background, and paint sniffing problem, as he alleges in his brief. … Sar-miento failed to give a definite answer as to this person’s future dangerousness because he wanted to qualify his answer with reference to studies showing this prediction was oftentimes inaccurate, although he did subsequently

Coble v. State

330 S.W.3d 253 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 13, 2010

He agreed that he was not qualified to express any opinion regarding appellant’s “future dangerousness.” … Texas law clearly assures that all such evidence will be adduced. Id. at 274-76 , 96 S.Ct. 2950 .

Wright v. State

7 S.W.3d 148 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 15, 1999

However well-intentioned Deputy Tomlinson was in this case, the exception should be reserved for circumstances where police intervention is clearly necessary. … A "search” of a validly impounded vehicle and a “seizure” of a moving vehicle which is not associated with any criminal activity are clearly two different things.