Case law

Stennett v. State

941 S.W.2d 914 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 16, 1996

What this bill does is establish the ... requirement of licensure and the payment of taxes with respect to illicit controlled substances and dangerous drugs and would offer another tool, if you would, to law enforcement in … The intent behind the Texas Controlled Substances Tax is to punish drug dealers, not to produce revenue, as clearly demonstrated by its legislative history. Majority Opinion at 916.

Thomas, Heather

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. … 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

Gardner, John Steven

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 21, 2009

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

VAUGHAN AND SONS INC. v. State

737 S.W.2d 805 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 16, 1987

This information is clearly void. … Here, the criminal liability of the appellant corporation is established and determined solely through the enactment of a strict and absolute criminal procedural law.

Robbins, Ex Parte Neal Hampton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 29, 2011

Yet its accuracy is clearly open to dispute. … Wheeler is highly qualified, his testimony adds “very little to this case. . . .

Carter v. State

309 S.W.3d 31 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 24, 2010

It contends that, although the videotape was helpful to resolve the factual issues, the trial court had an opportunity to view the witness and was “uniquely qualified” to determine Henderson’s demeanor and credibility. … 'It is well established that when we are confronted with a plurality opinion, we look to that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.'

Burns v. State

556 S.W.2d 270 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 3, 1977

In Whitmore, it was further stated, “It is of no consequence that prospective juror Eugg was qualified under Witherspoon [in light of disqualification under Sec. 12.31(b), supra].” … But any condition which renders the husband or wife immune from harm from the other’s testimony makes such spouse a competent witness against the other’s co-defendant.”

Baltierra v. State

586 S.W.2d 553 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 19, 1979

authority for the proposition that constitutional and statutory guarantees of confrontation include, in a proper case, that the trial proceedings and testimony be interpreted to the accused in a language he can understand by a qualified … Once these prerequisites are established, the furnishing of an interpreter is a discretionary function and in exercising this discretion, the trial court may look to see if the accused's right to confrontation is protected

Cade, Tyrone

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 25, 2015

The trial court’s ruling on the purposeful-discrimination step must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. … While a juror who would automatically vote for the death penalty can be challengeable for cause once a proper basis is established, Appellant failed to establish the proper bases to challenge these veniremembers for cause

Earhart v. State

823 S.W.2d 607 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 18, 1991

We conclude that the trial court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. E. … The affidavit contains facts which establish probable cause.

Weaver v. State

87 S.W.3d 557 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 11, 2002

Crim.App.1999), we explained: The [two] prior intoxication-related offenses [referred to in § 49.09(b)], whether they are felonies or misdemeanors, serve the purpose of establishing whether the instant offense qualifies as … to indicate character conformity, and are clearly prejudicial, although not unfairly so.

Petetan, US Carnell Jr. A/K/A Carnell Petetan, Jr.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 8, 2017

But, does a consensus of Texas citizens agree that all persons who might legitimately qualify for assistance under the social services definition of [intellectual disability] be exempt from an otherwise … The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hall thus clearly signaled that, to be constitutionally permissible, standards for assessing intellectual disability must be informed by the current diagnostic framework and may not disregard

Patrick v. State

906 S.W.2d 481 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 20, 1995

The venire-person clearly was impaired in her ability to function as a juror. It was no abuse of discretion to grant the challenge for cause. … Reed’s lawyer appeared for Reed and claimed Reed had no notes responsive to the subpoena duces tecum and Reed had a qualified privilege not to testify.

Willis v. State

785 S.W.2d 378 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 7, 1989

It is well established that a point of error on appeal must correspond to the precise objection made in the trial court. Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.Cr.App.1986); *383 Hodge v. … Clearly, the testimony regarding appellant’s reputation did not stem solely from the instant offense. There was no error in the admission of reputation testimony from either Deputy Sheriff Jackson or Ranger Coleman.

Taylor, Rashik Ali

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 … Evid. 803 (4) advisory committee notes ("Statements as to fault would not ordinarily qualify [as a statement for purposes of diagnosis or treatment].

Allen v. State

841 S.W.2d 7 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 14, 1992

It follows that the State is required to establish Allen’s guilt by the greater weight and degree of credible testimony. … Nevertheless, “we will not consider those facts to have been established.” Id., at 40.

Gholson v. State

542 S.W.2d 395 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 20, 1976

Clearly, the evidence was not offered for the truth of the statements recited in the book. … (Emphasis supplied) The Court held the witness was qualified.

Ex Parte Rodriguez

164 S.W.3d 400 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 15, 2005

him have trouble concentrating, impaired his decisionmaking, and led to low self-esteem and irritability. [4] *403 With his long-term inhalant abuse, applicant acted impulsively, was easily agitated, and could not think clearly … The applicant has failed to establish significant deficits in adaptive skills. The expert evidence is in conflict, but the question is not necessarily controlled by expert testing.

Holmes v. State

70 Tex. Crim. 423 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 7, 1913

This bill is clearly insufficient to require this court to review the question attempted to be raised by the bill. Conger v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 312 ; Ortiz v. State, 151 S. W. … Even if we could consider it, the evidence was clearly admissible. The court did not commit any reversible error in permitting Mrs.

Goodwin v. State

799 S.W.2d 719 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 28, 1990

CROW: We object to the Court granting this challenge for cause because the juror is qualified, that her condition is not one that renders her unfit. Under the 14th and 6th amendments she is qualified. … First, the lesser included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged.