Case law

Rogers v. State

71 Tex. Crim. 149 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 23, 1913

In fact, the testimony without doubt and clearly established that appellant burned the gin without reference to his own written testimony. His main or sole defense was insanity. … clearly, not only the guilt of the appellant, but that he was sane and not insane when he committed the act.

Warren v. State

768 S.W.2d 300 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 22, 1989

The trial judge clearly erred in excusing the venirepersons. … We find that what Judge Duncan did for the Court in Green was to simply more clearly articulate what this Court has long required, if not expressly, at least implicitly, to preserve error and establish harm when a trial judge

Oliver v. State

65 Tex. Crim. 150 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1911

This bill, thus tested, is clearly insufficient to require this court to consider it. … The court sustained the objection, and in allowing the bill qualified it as follows: “Said 0. F.

Cavazos, Abraham

382 S.W.3d 377 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 31, 2012

In contrast, manslaughter requires proof that Appellant recklessly caused the victim’s death. 2 Thus, the elements of manslaughter are not established by proof of the same or less than all of the elements required to establish … To determine whether an offense qualifies as a lesser-included offense under Article 37.09(1), we use the cognate-pleadings approach. Ex parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 259 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (op. on reh’g).

Lane v. State

73 Tex. Crim. 266 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 21, 1914

The court, in allowing the bill, qualified it by stating that this case “was set down for trial a week or ten days before it was finally tried. … The court, in this instance, clearly shows he did not abuse his discretion and the bill presents no error. Section 767, White’s C. C. P., and cases there cited.

Rhomer v. State

569 S.W.3d 664 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 30, 2019

An expert is qualified by specialized knowledge, training, or experience. Wyatt , 23 S.W.3d at 27 . … An abuse of discretion in admitting evidence occurs when the decision is so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable persons might disagree. McDonald v. State , 179 S.W.3d 571 , 576 (Tex. Crim.

Daugherty v. State

146 Tex. Crim. 488 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 14, 1943

In order that this opinion may clearly reflect the basis of our conclusion on the question, we deem it proper to state in substance the salient facts proven on the trial. … To do so, we would necessarily depart from the established rules of this State and overrule many former decisions by this court.

Smith v. State

63 Tex. Crim. 183 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1911

The appellant excepted, and the court qualified the hill by stating “that no sufficient predicate established to show the contents *187 of letter; letter was hearsay. Ho identity shown, never knew or had seen Mrs. … The bill as prepared and allowed by the court, and, as qualified by him, is clearly insufficient, and the court is not shown to have committed any error in excluding said testimony.

Lewis v. State

58 Tex. Crim. 351 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 2, 1910

To the correctness of this we assent, and the decisions upon the points at issue were clearly within the line of precedents, and in strict consonance with reason, but dissent from the conclusion reached in Ex parte Bains. … Responding to this suggestion, Judge Henderson, speaking for the court, uses this language: “The proposition is clearly announced in the last mentioned case (Ex parte Elliott, 44 Texas Crim. Rep., 575 , 72 S. W.

Lauderdale v. State

31 Tex. Crim. 46 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 4, 1892

The evidence in the deposition, taken before the examining court, contains confessions of facts which establish the guilt of the defendant. … This rule is most clearly established in the Lopez case, supra. Were the confessions in this case freely made—made without persuasion ? They were not. See the evidence bearing upon this question.

Oranday-Garcia, Erick Alberto

410 S.W.3d 865 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 9, 2013

relief under the new law that it identifies. 6 We take this opportunity to finish the job. *868 In Ex parte Brooks, 7 we concluded that, before this Court may review a subsequent writ application based on a claim that it is immune … This clearly undermines the purpose of the subsequent-writ provisions. 12 In order to avoid this anomaly in the non-capital habeas milieu as well, we extended the same implicit requirement of an allegation of facts sufficient

Hall v. State

160 S.W.3d 24 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 15, 2004

I am unpersuaded that bragging or using big words and claiming to read classic literature establishes that appellant is not retarded. … Nor are persons with limited mental abilities immune from other human foibles, such as lying. A well-drafted motion may be the product of a skilled jailhouse writ writer.

Carmona v. State

698 S.W.2d 100 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 10, 1985

As in Alford, supra the defendant sought to establish where the witness was living. … Carlos Marin was an admitted co-participant who had been granted immunity in exchange for his testimony.

Robertson v. State

63 Tex. Crim. 268 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1911

The evidence introduced was sufficient to establish, and the jury by its verdict evidently so found, that the appellant at night on the public streets in the town of Emory, Rains County, in company with another, sang vulgar … It will be seen that this bill is clearly insufficient in that it does not inform the court of what the other testimony was so as to show whether or not this was admissible, nor is any objection stated in the bill.

Galan v. State

76 Tex. Crim. 619 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 19, 1915

Blunt as a juror, and in holding Blunt qualified, causing him to peremptorily challenge him and thereby forcing W.A. … He accepted the bill as qualified and is bound by it under all the decisions.

Hudson v. State

453 S.W.2d 147 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 28, 1970

Appellant went to great length in his effort to establish the absence of counsel in some of the prior con *148 victions, but we have searched this record in vain and fail to find any mention of in-digency. Burgett v. … Clearly, the officers were authorized to take what they saw through the open door and to arrest appellant. The drugs, which they saw, were proven to be opium, cocaine, and isonipecaine.

State Ex Rel. Holmes v. Denson

671 S.W.2d 896 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 27, 1984

If said ruling was clearly improper, then the judge had no authority to enter any order but the denial of the motion. Gray, supra, slip opinion at p. 7. … or more members of the combination are not criminally responsible for the object offense. "(2) one or more members of the combination have been acquitted, have not been prosecuted or convicted of a different offense, or immune

Gonzales v. State

994 S.W.2d 170 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 9, 1999

(2) Did the trial court err in excluding evidence allegedly relevant to establish the necessity defense? … The defendant's only substantial right is that the jurors who do serve be qualified. The defendant's rights go to those who serve, not to those who are excluded. Id. at 393 .

Dilworth v. State

36 Tex. Crim. 189 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 10, 1896

. * * *” Section 19 provides: “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.” … As we understand the law of this State, Arts. 973 and 974 of the Revised Penal Code are. clearly in violation of Sections 17 and 19 of the bill of rights, and therefore void.

Ex Parte Fierro

934 S.W.2d 370 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 11, 1996

the due process violation and the habeas standard to establish harm on collateral review. … Thus, establishing error does not automatically establish harm on habeas corpus, and harm must be shown in accordance with Dutchover.