Case law

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.

Eagle Printing Co. v. Delaney

671 S.W.2d 883 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 30, 1984

Each witness was granted immunity under Article 52.05 and testified, although Respondent characterizes the first as “uncooperative”, his “belief” being that “she was deceptive, due in part to fear of retribution.” … understanding of contemporaneous uses and abuses of Courts of Inquiry so recently criticized, see supra, at p. 6-7, and we have no reasoned basis for concluding that the Legislature did not mean literally that which it plainly and clearly

Garcia v. State

126 S.W.3d 921 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 21, 2004

This testimony was clearly sufficient to establish appellant’s membership in the gang. Point of error five is overruled. … His statements may be contained within a business record, but they are not admissible to establish the fact that George Washington was, in fact, cutting down a cherry tree, although they would be admissible to establish that

Harkreader v. State

35 Tex. Crim. 243 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 27, 1895

, and until his successor shall have duly qualified. … The *255 act itself is only one requiring the exercise of such skill and diligence as appertains to a ministerial office, and we think it clearly comes within the definition given in Rains v.

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.

Valdez, Fidencio

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 20, 2018

Thus, the record in this case does not demonstrate that the State failed to disclose an immunity or leniency agreement, express or tacit, or failed to correct misleading testimony. … After qualifying the requisite number of venire members in April 2014, the trial judge allowed the parties to make their peremptory strikes against each venire member in the qualified juror pool.

Sheffield v. State

371 S.W.2d 49 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 3, 1962

The evidence adduced from the testimony of Doris Sayles and Mireles clearly shows that the acknowledgment was falsely made. … Suffice it to say that the testimony is more than adequate to establish the appellant as a principal in this transaction.

Dennis v. State

71 Tex. Crim. 162 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 18, 1913

This clearly and fully covered the point requested in said special charge, and the court committed no error under the circumstances in refusing his said special charge. … He offered the' testimony of several witnesses whose testimony was very unsatisfactory and insufficient to establish his insanity, but may have had a tendency to do so. • The court correctly submitted in his charge this question

Fletcher v. State

141 Tex. Crim. 26 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 27, 1940

Hence we cannot consider the same but are relegated to the bill as qualified by the trial court and that bill, as thus qualified, fails to reflect any reversible error. … Hence the court’s bill, as qualified, must prevail under the established rules of this court.

Urban v. State

387 S.W.2d 396 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 13, 1965

The indictment was clearly hearsay. It constituted no proof. Hearsay evidence is not actually evidence at all. 24 Tex.Jur.2d, p. 51, Sec. 557; Ex Parte Thrash, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 409 , 320 S.W.2d 357 ; Doyle v. … Appellant’s guilt could not be established without evidence to sustain the allegation contained in the indictment that the three acts transpired within one year prior to the filing of the indictment; so the conclusion is

Roberts v. State

220 S.W.3d 521 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 18, 2007

GUILT — Factual Sufficiency In point of error one, appellant contends that the evidence was factually insufficient to establish the underlying offense of robbery. … Appellant further claims that this error was “structural,” and thus immune from a harmless error analysis, because his right to counsel was violated.

Turner v. State

462 S.W.2d 9 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 26, 1969

Our examination of the record of the pretrial hearing clearly supports the trial court’s findings. … Since none of the matters set out above were in evidence, the Court was clearly right in limiting the counsel’s argument to the evidence adduced.

Porter v. State

623 S.W.2d 374 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 21, 1981

State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), was not established for the admission of a sound recording. … A proper predicate for the admission of the tape recording as a business record was established.

Devereaux v. State

473 S.W.2d 525 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 29, 1971

The identification of the knife by the two students was clearly proper. Their testimony established that the appellant had a knife in her possession on the afternoon of the stabbing. … The qualified bill of exception reflects that appellant's attorney indicated to the court the venue motion would not be pursued.

Victoria v. State

522 S.W.2d 919 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 21, 1975

In the Roberson case, without granting her immunity the state called Dora Lartigue as a witness; she waived her privilege against self-incrimination and testified. … The record here clearly reflects that Lar-tigue claimed the privilege for herself and through her attorney. Since the privilege was clearly asserted by the witness herself we perceive no error.

Calloway v. State

743 S.W.2d 645 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 27, 1988

Arguing that, under Supreme Court law, the rights and immunities entitled to protection under the Fourth Amendment do not depend on a property interest in the place searched but, rather, whether the residence search was one … We do not agree that in the colloquy the trial court clearly stated the wrong legal test. Even if it could be argued the court did, the appellant did not sustain his burden of proof under the proper test. Wilson v.

Oranday-Garcia, Erick Alberto

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 9, 2013

Oranday-Garcia — 4 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

Boutwell, Chad Michael

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 8, 2021

On cross-examination, defense counsel established that: (1) despite Junior telling Sgt. … Keenan qualified as an expert on this topic. 13 The lack of a CV and the previous exclusion of Dr.

Lagrone v. State

942 S.W.2d 602 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 5, 1997

At trial, Robert Wilshire, an employee of the gun store, testified that this shotgun qualifies as a deadly weapon. … Therefore, Pamela Lloyd’s statement qualifies as nothing more than a post-crime expression of grief for the purposes of establishing the crime’s impact on a living victim — precisely the purpose of a victim impact statement

Llamas v. State

12 S.W.3d 469 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 16, 2000

Given our strong language in War-mowski, the Court of Appeals reasoned, “to hold that a mandatory right established by the state legislature can be ignored by trial judges simply because it is not a constitutional right, … Clearly, evidence as to the cocaine 'charge was admitted in this trial that would otherwise not be relevant to the possession of altered identification numbers and vice versa.