Case law

Ramey, Ker'sean Olajuwa

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 11, 2009

Article 37.09 reads: An offense is a lesser included offense if: (1) it is established by proof of the same or less than all of the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; (2) it differs from the … We hold that the jury's verdict was not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust.

Whiteside, Jr. v. State

111 Tex. Crim. 116 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 12, 1928

These matters were particularly prejudicial and clearly inadmissible. The State should not attempt to go into them on another trial. … The bill is qualified to show that witness Hill testified that this came from the place where deceased jumped to her death.

Stovall v. State

53 Tex. Crim. 30 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 26, 1908

This testimony was clearly' admissible. … Taking the res gestee statement of the deceased, which is legitimate proof to establish the fact, it makes appellant clearly guilty of manslaughter.

Murphy v. State

139 Tex. Crim. 552 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 15, 1940

That would leave, then, approximately twenty that might be qualified out of 3,350 qualified voters of the county. … It would appear that if they were qualified to serve on the grand juries appellant could have established that fact.

Perkins v. State

528 S.W.2d 598 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 22, 1975

Thus, these qualifying phrases are obviously necessary to inform the defendant *602 what proof he will have to meet upon trial. Nichols v. State, supra. … Clearly, harm was shown. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. . See note 7, infra. .

Corpus v. State

463 S.W.2d 4 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 20, 1971

The chain of custody was established and the substance in the fingerstall was shown by chemical analysis to be amidone. … The matter was clearly collateral to any issue in the case. See also Preston v. State, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 300 , 53 S. W. 127 . Arechiga v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 462 S.W.2d 1 (This day decided).

Hernandez v. State

757 S.W.2d 744 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 29, 1988

Clearly, all jurors opposed to capital punishment face a moral dilemma. … Moreover, jury service is an obligation of all qualified citizens.

Stanley v. State

631 S.W.2d 751 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 1982

Apparently appellant would argue that his wife could not qualify as an “owner” under the statutory definition having no greater right of possession than he, and even if she was an “owner” there was implied consent because … His wife clearly had the greater right of possession and was an “owner.”

Russell v. State

727 S.W.2d 573 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 1, 1987

The court reasoned: [A] blanket prohibition against the taking of voluntary statements or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly … —Houston [14th] 1984), aff’d 712 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). *578 The rule established in Nash, supra, was approved in Massengale v.

Gay v. State

79 Tex. Crim. 305 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 1, 1916

The uncontradicted testimony clearly sustained all of the allegations and showed appellant’s violation of the law. … One section of said Act, now article 757, Penal Code, expressly exempted all persons who had been regularly engaged in the general practice for five consecutive years prior to January 1, 1875, and others who had legally qualified

State v. Villarreal, David

475 S.W.3d 784 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 26, 2014

Often a question arises with respect to the proper scope of a seemingly well established exception. … Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3 (2013), a civil rights case involving an.issue of qualified, immunity for a pursuing police officer, the Supreme Court held that Welsh did not purport to apply in the context of the so-called "hot pursuit

Cavazos, Abraham

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 31, 2012

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.09 (3) says that an offense is a lesser-included offense if "(1) it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense … 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).

Garcia, Frank Martinez

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

Chambers v. State

568 S.W.2d 313 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 24, 1978

This is in accord with well-established precedents. … This clearly violates the mandate of Witherspoon as well as the requirements of our own Texas Constitution.

Holiday, Raphael Deon

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 2006

Witt . (8) Holiday contends that Sessions was qualified to serve and that the State did not establish that her views regarding the death penalty would substantially impair her ability to follow the law. … The matters complained about by Holiday go to the weight of Reiter's testimony and not its admissibility. (43) Reiter was clearly qualified and explained his conclusion about the probability of ignition sources in scientific

Ex Parte Medellin

223 S.W.3d 315 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 15, 2006

We hold that Avena and the President's memorandum do not preempt Section 5 and do not qualify as previously unavailable factual or legal bases. I. … is entitled to an immunity heretofore not afforded to any citizen or nonresident under Texas or Federal law — immunity from procedural default.

Holloway, Danny Lee II

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 30, 2013

Clearly, the implication at trial was that the knife recovered from Applicant's car was the knife he used to stab three people during the fight. … However, the absence of Ashley Lee's DNA from the stains on the knife is not clearly exculpatory, as argued by Applicant.

Aldridge v. State

113 Tex. Crim. 331 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 9, 1929

This testimony we think clearly admissible, which disposes also of appellant’s Bill of Exception No. 2, relating to similar testimony. … Other bills of exception appearing in the record are so qualified by the Court as to show no error and their discussion is deemed unnecessary. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Vinson v. State

252 S.W.3d 336 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2008

This passage clearly shows that Chapman had removed the appellant prior to interviewing Hollimon about the details of the assault. … The fact is, Chapman’s statement on re-direct examination clearly *342 indicates that the appellant was not present when Hollimon recounted the details of the assault.

Cooper v. State

72 Tex. Crim. 250 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 17, 1913

As qualified by the court, this bill presents no error. Carter v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 73 . … The evidence clearly was sufficient to sustain the verdict. Ho reversible error is pointed out and the judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.