Case law

Hixon v. State

523 S.W.2d 711 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 4, 1975

City of El Paso, 408 S.W.2d 545 , stated: "An ordinance may establish a classification so long as the classification is reasonable and applies equally to all persons who fall within the class." … Even if the last category be broad or vague (an issue not presented in this case), Sec. 41-10 is clearly the special provision and controls.

Bullock v. State

73 Tex. Crim. 419 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 11, 1914

The court qualified the bill by stating that Mr. … As qualified, the bill shows no error. Branch’s Crim. Law, sec. 361.

COMPTON, DILLION GAGE v. the State of Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 12, 2023

After strikes for cause, the voir dire process in this case produced 42 qualified venirepersons for the 12-person jury. 3 Of the 42 qualified venirepersons, 19 were men and 3 There were also four venirepersons qualified … He therefore asks us to hold that his claim is immune from procedural default. We decline to do so.

Kemp v. State

846 S.W.2d 289 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 16, 1992

In the instant case, we find that the voir dire examination of venireperson Haniwalt clearly supports the trial judge’s ruling. … We conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that this evidence established by clear proof that appellant, in fact, committed the alleged extraneous offenses.

Smith v. State

140 S.W. 1096 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1911

The appellant excepted, and the court qualified the bill by stating “that no sufficient predicate established to show the contents of letter; letter was hearsay. No 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. [6] Appellant’s next bill is that while Bessie

Hamilton v. State

141 Tex. Crim. 614 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 26, 1941

I imagine a few negroes in this county could qualify as jury commissioners under the law, and I think a few could qualify as grand jurors, and a few scattered around who could qualify as petit jurors. … Rep. 338, as in other cases, that discrimination in organizing a grand jury and empaneling a. petit jury cannot be established by merely proving that no one of the defendant’s race was on either of the juries, and that an

Oliver v. State

70 Tex. Crim. 140 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 23, 1913

The evidence was ample, full and sufficient to establish the State’s contention of murder in the first degree. … The court in qualifying the bill stated: “The testimony introduced before this matter arose showed that the witness, Arthur Majors, was not present at the time of the homicide/' Clearly this was hearsay and no part of the

Hinkle v. State

442 S.W.2d 728 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 21, 1969

The extraneous offenses were offered by the State to establish identity and to show motive. … When the widow was called the appellant objected on the grounds that she was not a witness to the alleged offense and that the identity of the deceased had been clearly established and was not disputed.

Wagner v. State

687 S.W.2d 303 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 1, 1984

Appellant asserted that because the State did not establish that Long was a qualified "bad" reputation witness, Long should not have been permitted to testify for the prosecution. The majority disagreed. … Today, the majority of this Court holds that Long should not have been permitted to testify as a "bad" reputation witness for the prosecution, because the State did not establish that he was qualified to so testify.

Handy v. State

139 Tex. Crim. 3 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 19, 1939

Witness thought that a jury of qualified jurors could have been gotten out of a venire of 100 to 150 men. … He did not think him qualified to pass upon the qualifications of the prospective jurors in this case; Mr.

Selman v. State

807 S.W.2d 310 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 17, 1991

State, 656 S.W.2d 453 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (trial court erred in instructing the jury a witness called by the defense was an accomplice witness; the State did not call the witness even though he had been granted immunity by … A defendant may assuredly insist upon observance of this guarantee even when the evidence is so overwhelming as to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sweeney v. State

65 Tex. Crim. 593 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 20, 1912

It has also been held that even where illegal evidence has been admitted, that may not always cause a reversal, but these holdings have always been qualified by the statement that there was no injury shown by its admission … Wherever matters of this character arise, the rule ought to be in consonance with the basic principle of our law, which is that everyone accused of crime shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established beyond a

French v. State

546 S.W.2d 612 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 16, 1977

(Emphasis added) Clearly the Legislature provided that there would be one municipal judge for such courts. Sec. 12C-3 of the Hurst City Ordinances is inconsistent with Art. 1196(a), supra. … V, sec. 1, provides: “The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof . . 2 .

Curtis v. State

519 S.W.2d 883 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 12, 1975

The ground is clearly multifarious. Article 40.09, Sec. 9, Vernon’s Ann., supra. We shall, however, briefly discuss appellant’s contentions. … An examination of that testimony indicates they all were qualified to testify. No error is shown.

Gray v. State

82 Tex. Crim. 27 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 27, 1917

These principles are so well established, and the authorities so uniform, that it is unnecessary to cite or quote the cases. … This is so well established the cases need not be cited, but see 1 Branch’s Ann. P. C., sec. 167, p. 101, where a large number ■of cases are collated.

Zuliani v. State

97 S.W.3d 589 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 5, 2003

After testimonial immunity was granted, Dwinell said that she and the appellant had been arguing about her daughter. … the evidence as to be clearly wrong.

Hunt v. State

492 S.W.2d 540 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 21, 1973

It is not applicable when a further extension is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context.” … The last ground of error is that “the evidence fails to establish a chain of custody of the dynamite, fuses and caps from the time of seizure to their introduction into evidence at trial.”

Stultz v. State

500 S.W.2d 853 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 31, 1973

Although neither the record nor appellant’s brief clearly discloses the precise constitutional basis for such a claim, we take it that appellant relies upon the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination and the … Article 46.02, Section 2(f)(1), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., provides, in part, that “the court may, at its discretion appoint disinterested qualified experts to examine the defendant with regard to his present competency to stand

Heiselbetz v. State

906 S.W.2d 500 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 20, 1995

However, after establishing that Bertrand held a conclusion as to his guilt or innocence, appellant abandoned the statutory language and failed to clearly establish whether that conclusion would influence her verdict. 13 … Since appellant did not clearly establish that the con-elusion held would influence Bertrand’s verdict, the trial court was justified in clarifying the matter.

Reynolds v. State

489 S.W.2d 866 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 3, 1972

On August 3, 1970, prior to appellant’s trial, Linda Beryl Smith was granted immunity. … She admitted that she had been granted immunity from prosecution.