Case law

Rice v. State

54 Tex. Crim. 149 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 6, 1907

Appellant objected to his testimony on the ground that he was not qualified as an expert in such a matter and could not therefore give testimony as to his opinion in such matters, and was not qualified, according to his own … In the light of this statement the evidence clearly was admissible.

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.

McCann v. State

129 Tex. Crim. 105 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 1935

The bills as thus qualified fail to disclose any error. In the case of Langhorn v. State, 289 S. … This court will not overturn the finding of the trial court on an issue of fact unless it clearly appears to be wrong. See Stanton v. State, 71 S. W. (2d) 287 .

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.

Ex Parte Andrews

51 Tex. Crim. 79 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 27, 1907

Give the names of any members of the committees of the Labor Council, other than yourself, who are cooperating and working to establish a boycott of the cars of the Houston Electric Company or to have same placed on the unfair … grand jury was engaged in investigating, and we are equally left in the dark from this record as to the particular environments or circumstances surrounding the -special matter of investigation, which would enable us to clearly

Bizzell v. State

72 Tex. Crim. 442 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 10, 1913

There can be no question but that our statute regulating the formation of a jury in a capital case is not mandatory, but is clearly directory only. And this court has uniformly, repeatedly and expressly so held. … If not, then the action, whilst it establishes a patent irregularity, is not a reversible matter. Are the statutes mandatory or directory? "`In respect to statutes,' says Mr.

Greer v. State

437 S.W.2d 558 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 5, 1969

It is observed that while county or district attorneys may have limited statutory authority to administer oaths in their official capacity, there would appear to be no prohibition against such officials qualifying as a notary … This was true despite the fact that a picture of said automobile introduced in evidence clearly reflected a Texas registration. 2 .

Thompson v. State

124 Tex. Crim. 440 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1933

evidence by the state in this case the jury are charged that if they believe such confession was not freely and voluntarily made, or if they believe the same was induced by threats, coercion or persuasion or by promise of immunity … This pretended argument was but a statement of the fact denying that the appellant had been severely punished by the officers and was clearly an attempt to minimize the punishment and to create in the minds of the jury the

Penn v. State

36 Tex. Crim. 140 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 27, 1896

This court in this case held “that jeopardy is a special defense, and the burden of establishing it clearly and satisfactorily rests upon the defendant; and that it devolves upon him to prove (1) that he had formerly been … The court qualifies this bill by stating “that no notice was taken by the defendant or his counsel of this or any other language used by the District Attorney at the time, or at any other time, until the filing of the motion

Rogers v. State

78 Tex. Crim. 225 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 1, 1915

It was amply sufficient to establish, and from it the jury were clearly authorized to find, as they did, that he was not insane but sane at the time he killed the deceased. … The court in qualifying the bill on this question states that the witness was not permitted to answer the questions. This' bill presents no error. Appellant’s third bill is very lengthy. It is unnecessary to copy it.

McArthur v. State

132 Tex. Crim. 447 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 7, 1937

It occurs to us that the testimony was admissible to show the condition of appellant’s mind and tended to establish a motive on the part of appellant for the brutal beating of the deceased. … Of course, in such cases where the jury found the defendant guilty under both counts the verdict was clearly erroneous. In the case of Love joy v. State, 48 S.

Watson v. State

287 S.W. 265 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1926

We think this testimony was clearly admissible as showing the animus of the appellant against the prosecuting witness, aid the motive he had at the time of the difficulty, and in rebuttal of his contention that he was not … We regret that it becomes necessary to reverse this ease on this argument, but, under the well-established doctrine of this state for many years, we think there is no other alternative left to this court.

State of Texas v. Vasilas, James

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 22, 2006

Clearly, Appellee misses the point of § 37.10, which does not effectively disbar attorneys, but makes them criminally liable if they tamper with a governmental record. … App. 1999), clearly qualify as governmental records. It is not at all absurd for the legislature to include pleadings within the meaning of a governmental record pursuant to § 37.10(a)(5).

Follis v. State

51 Tex. Crim. 186 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 20, 1907

We do not believe it was competent to prove what the sheriff and his deputy Grayson believed as to what would be done with appellant after he made a confession; that is, that he would be given immunity. … The verdict which they brought in was not a verdict of murder in the first degree, that part of the verdict assessing the punishment clearly indicating that it was not.

Tinker v. State

77 Tex. Crim. 506 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 13, 1915

.- 378), and is clearly sufficient against all of appellant’s objections to the effect, (1) the indictment was insufficient in law; (3) it did not sufficiently describe the burned house; (3) it did not give him specific notice … But the testimony, and all of it, without any contradiction whatever, overwhelmingly established that said Smith ¡ alone owned said gin and had for a number of years.

Thompson v. State

77 Tex. Crim. 550 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 20, 1915

It is unnecessary to give but a brief statement of what the evidence, with certainty, establishes. Appellant was a young negro man just about grown. … The State also clearly disproved that his father shot the last two shots into the body of deceased and that his father dragged the body and put it in the pool, but, on the contrary, established with certainty that he and

Tucker v. State

67 Tex. Crim. 510 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 12, 1912

It is an established rule that under such circumstances such question does not present reversible error. … He accepted the bill with the qualification of the court and, as qualified, it does not show error.

Pugh v. State

148 Tex. Crim. 277 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 21, 1945

The trial court qualifies this bill by showing that one of these so-called objectionable jurors was M. L. … Turnipseed, as qualified by the court, evidences no error. *284 Bills Nos. 10, 11 and 12 as qualified by the court show no error.

Jones v. State

843 S.W.2d 487 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 29, 1992

The trial court’s ruling on a challenge for cause on this basis is reversible only if it was clearly an abuse of discretion. Goodwin v. … State, 542 S.W.2d 677, 683 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) to establish his claim.

Leyva v. State

552 S.W.2d 158 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 14, 1977

All that is required is that the motion to revoke should fully and clearly set forth the basis upon which the State seeks revocation so that a defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called … But, in light of counsel’s statement that “his sole testimony would be .to establish the fact that he has been previously hospitalized in Mexico,” the testimony would have been merely cumulative of the certificate of the