Case law

Wingate v. State

152 S.W. 1078 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 27, 1912

witness at the police station was an established fact. … It was clearly admissible-for that purpose, even if the bill was sufficient to raise the point, and require this court to pass thereon.

Cuilla v. State

80 Tex. Crim. 41 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 31, 1916

The great preponderance of the testimony clearly establishes both, a fraudulent receiving and a concealing of the stolen property. … We will not recite the testimony in detail, but we will give the substance of what it established and what the jury were clearly authorized to believe and find therefrom. Will Curtis burglarized the store of A.

Mares v. State

71 Tex. Crim. 303 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1913

That he so testified in the County Court was clearly established by the testimony of two or more witnesses; and that his testimony in both particulars was false, etc., was also clearly established by two or more witnesses … In other words, on the trial of this case “it was clearly established by the State by two witnesses or more that appellant was present at the house of said Gonzales on said night of June 19, 1912, and also *305 that he bet

Perez v. State

11 S.W.3d 218 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 9, 2000

Although Article XVI § 2 is a constitutional provision, that provision does not establish a constitutional prohibition against jury service; instead, the provision requires merely that the Legislature establish a statutory … . [8] There is nothing in this type of error which should be immune to harmless error analysis.

Knauf v. State

108 Tex. Crim. 590 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 14, 1927

The evidence showing only one transaction and the minimum penalty having been assessed, we are clearly of the opinion that it was not the purpose of the jury to convict appellant of two felonies, but only upon one transaction … When testimony is material and relevant to an issue in the case on trial, it will not be rej ected because in and of itself it proves the commission of a separate offense or establishes some collateral or unrelated fact.

Carter v. State

78 Tex. Crim. 240 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 8, 1915

The evidence was clearly admissible." Battles v. State, 63 Texas Crim. Rep., 147 , and.a large number of cases decided since then following 'it. … Then follows the proper definition of the offense and the requisites the State must establish before a conviction could be had.

Bryson v. State

807 S.W.2d 742 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 24, 1991

There is no evidence that establishes that the harassment was peculiar to appellant’s official position or capacity. Appellant’s position as police chief was incidental to his harassment of Moreno. … Appellant’s act (placing his hand on Moreno’s buttocks) was clearly an abuse, as well as a misuse, of power which tended to exceed the scope of his duties.

Butterfield v. State

992 S.W.2d 448 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 21, 1999

The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Fifth Amendment provides no protection for the commission of perjury [21] and confers no privilege to lie. [22] The reason is that perjured testimony is an affront to the basic … This is counter to the well-established legal presumptions that sworn testimony is presumed to be true and that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Hunt v. State

89 Tex. Crim. 89 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 30, 1921

Many bills of exception were presented to the trial judge by appellant, and some were qualified and explained by the judge and filed by him with the clerk. … We believe the requested charge, under the facts of this cáse-, should have been given, but we will not discuss the matter further here, as our reason will more clearly appear in the discussion as to whether the accomplice

Pool v. State

102 Tex. Crim. 451 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 23, 1925

S. (1925 revision) provide that a certain number of residents and qualified voters may petition the county judge to order an election for the incorporation of a town, including in the petition the boundaries of the proposed … So corporate existence may be inferred and judicially noticed, although the incorporating act or charter cannot be found, if the fact of incorporation is clearly recognized by subsequent legislation not in contravention of

Thomas v. State

821 S.W.2d 616 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 11, 1991

If the evidence is adequate for such purpose, then it is sufficient to establish the object as a deadly weapon. No other proof is required. … Clearly, bayonets, scimitars, and swords of various kinds are designed for such purpose and, therefore, could qualify as deadly weapons under Section 1.07(a)(ll)(A).

Arensman v. State

79 Tex. Crim. 546 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 24, 1916

He cites a still larger number of the decisions of this court exactly in point and clearly establishing the rule stated by him. … As explained and qualified by the court, neither shows any error.

Dickey v. State

646 S.W.2d 232 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 1, 1983

In his sole ground of error appellant contends “The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objection to evidence of an extraneous offense, the State having failed to qualify said offense under an exception to the general … is admissible the offense must be clearly proven and the accused shown to have been its perpetrator.”

Ramirez v. State

119 Tex. Crim. 362 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 15, 1931

“A ruling by the appellate court upon a question of law raised on a former appeal will be considered as the law of the case in all subsequent proceedings in the same case, unless the ruling was clearly wrong and harmful.” … The court also charged the jury that the burden of proof was on the state to establish by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt, and that in case they had a reasonable doubt as to appellant’s guilt

Caton v. State

66 Tex. Crim. 473 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 15, 1912

If the answer had shown that they would have given appellant the benefit of the doubt on all the questions answered, then they would have clearly been proper jurors. … One of them, under the bill, seems to have fully qualified himself under the decisions of this court. In regard to the other juror, there may have been some doubt, but he was excused and did not sit on the jury. 3.

Hughes v. State

152 Tex. Crim. 297 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 9, 1948

He also instructed the jury that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and in case they had a reasonable doubt of his guilt, to acquit him. … The bill, as qualified by the court, fails to reflect any error.

Scott v. State

741 S.W.2d 435 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 18, 1987

Thereafter it was concluded: “In the instant case, the owner clearly testified that the value of the gun was $500.00. … Appellant urges that the Court of Appeals was correct that the proof of a trade-in value was insufficient to establish the value of the stolen vehicle as being greater than $750.00.

Garrett v. State

220 S.W.3d 926 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 25, 2007

State, 191 S.W.3d 133, 136 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (it is well established that courts of appeals may review unassigned error); see, e.g., Romero v. … certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as ‘structural,’ no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune

GABALDON, IVAN v. the State of Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 3, 2025

Under the clearly erroneous standard, we would still give significant, if not nearly complete deference to the trial court’s finding. … GABALDON CONCURRENCE – 17 Texas is unique in that it “establishes the offices of County and District Attorneys” under the “Judicial” department of government. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 21.

Flores v. State

110 Tex. Crim. 481 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 2, 1928

The bill of exception presenting this matter has been qualified by the Court without objection by appellant in the following language: “Because the witness testified that after the search warrant had been presented to the … P., inhibiting the admission of certain confessions “unless in connection with said confession he makes statements of facts or circumstances that are found to be true which conduce to establish his guilt. * * * ” Weller v