Case law

Merriman v. State

594 S.W.2d 410 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 28, 1979

It was further established that appellant was a licensed pharmacist and that he was licensed under the Texas Controlled Substances Act at the time of the transaction. … Appellant’s status as a licensed pharmacist “practitioner” bestows no immunity upon him from commission of the offense for which he was convicted under the facts of this case, and we so hold.

Vannortrick, Eugene Robert

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 27, 2007

Does a silent record on citizenship establish harm when the trial court failed to admonish the defendant regarding the deportation consequences of a guilty plea? … Being "deportable" as a result of a qualifying conviction is not correspondent with an official finding by the immigration court of a permanent change in immigration status.

Hollis v. State

69 Tex. Crim. 286 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 5, 1913

As we understand the bill as qualified, it in effect shows that when the witness Starr testified that he found the three keys stuck in the mattress in appellant’s room at Mrs. … The principal point on which it seems, appellant makes this contention is that the evidence fails to establish that there was any breaking such as is contemplated by the statute, to constitute burglary.

Smith v. State

573 S.W.2d 763 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 15, 1978

But the result reached by the majority in this case is clearly unwarranted where this record clearly supports his determination that the prospective juror was confused and the trial judge personally established that the prospective … That has been established at that point. Do you understand that? A Yes.

Flores, Ex Parte Gerardo

387 S.W.3d 626 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 5, 2012

Pustilnik was clearly a qualified expert. In addition to serving as the Chief Medical Examiner for Galveston County, he was an Assistant Professor of Pathology at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. … Kliman was clearly "biased and inaccurate.” The State also submitted the affidavit of Dr. Edwina J.

Streetman v. State

698 S.W.2d 132 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 2, 1985

In exchange for his testimony, but upon recommendation of the prosecuting attorney, Holden received probation; Johnson was granted immunity and Kirkindoll received a sentence of forty-five years’ confinement in the Department … We find that the independent evidence outside of the accomplice Holden’s testimony that the State presented to the jury is clearly sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice witness Holden.

Belcher v. State

71 Tex. Crim. 646 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 12, 1913

His examination and testimony on his voir dire showed clearly that he was not disqualified but qualified in full accordance with subdivision 13 of article 693 under which the challenge was made. … So that we think in this case the appellant’s confession was clearly admissible and the court should not have charged thereon in any particular as contended by appellant.

Contreras v. State

312 S.W.3d 566 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 9, 2010

A constitutional violation is established only if the evidence obtained is later admitted in a judicial proceeding. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Robinson, Leo Demory

466 S.W.3d 166 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 1, 2015

Although he acknowledged receiving the fax from Robinson’s parole officer, Howard noted the fax did not qualify as proper notice under the law — it was not done in person nor was it provided within seven days of moving. … Because Article 62.012 fails to provide a culpable mental state and does not clearly dispense with one, Penal Code § 6.02(c) requires we read one into the statute. Like the Court in Young v.

Wilson v. State

658 S.W.2d 615 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 19, 1983

S.W.2d 347 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), to testify that a chemical breath test was administered and the results showed appellant to have a 0.17% blood alcohol level, there was an absence of expert testimony from a chemist or others qualified … the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable

Adams v. State

48 Tex. Crim. 452 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 23, 1905

The evidence conclusively establishes the fact, we take it, that Moseley was killed by Claude Yoe. … However, appellant is clearly demonstrated to have been an active participant and coadjutor with Moseley from the beginning to the end of the difficulty.

Harris, Roderick

491 S.W.3d 332 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 25, 2016

App. 2013) (explaining that an “issue of first impression can sometimes qualify” for extraordinary relief “when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established

Cain v. State

136 Tex. Crim. 275 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 2, 1938

. *279 It is well-established in this state that if there is direct testimony from any source that the defendant committed the offense charged, or participated therein, there is direct evidence of the main fact to be proved … As qualified, the bills fail to reveal reversible error.

Ex Parte Mitchell

853 S.W.2d 1 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 10, 1993

We also hold that this evidence qualified as impeachment evidence. *5 The testimony of East and Stroud would have impeached the testimony of the accomplices on the critical element of when applicant allegedly killed the victim … In return Owens received a grant of immunity and Mitchell received a promise of ten years’ punishment, probated. 2 .

Von Byrd v. State

569 S.W.2d 883 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 12, 1978

We there stated that the language of Article 46.02, Section 2(f)(1) — “appoint disinterested qualified experts to examine the defendant”— “. . . clearly means that such expert is not appointed by the court as the expert of … It is well established that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to nontesti-monial evidence. Schmerber v.

Salmon v. State

69 Tex. Crim. 506 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 5, 1913

Besides, the Judge, in qualifying this bill as to the proposed testimony of Holland, clearly shows that no reversible error was committed in not permitting the witness to testify as to what said Duncan meant. … The evidence clearly establishes that the threats, or what was claimed to be threats, by the deceased against appellant were actually made. The testimony on this subject was undisputed and clear.

Medina v. State

7 S.W.3d 633 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 6, 1999

unjust,” i.e., manifestly unjust, shocking to the conscience or clearly biased. … in the death was clearly dangerous to human life.

McIntyre v. State

172 Tex. Crim. 510 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 31, 1962

By Bill of Exception No. 1, it was shown that during the course of the selection of the jury an emergency arose in the family of a juror who had been accepted and qualified. … Clearly, appellant’s state of mind prior to the commission of the instant offense was admissible. His last contention is that he was denied an examining trial.

Graves v. State

58 Tex. Crim. 42 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 19, 1910

The court, in qualifying this bill, states: That when defendant shot Sajrers, Sayers’ horse ran to a tree between 100 "and 250 yards away. … We are of opinion that this testimony was admissible as res gestae and came clearly within the rule announced by this court in the case of Bronson v. State, recently decided by this court.

Watts v. State

61 Tex. Crim. 364 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 1, 1911

Eq. is clearly in line with other cases. … The next contention of appellant is that section 170 of said Act is constitutional; that it is an unreasonable abridgement of the liberty of the citizen to contract, and an abridgement of the privileges and immunities of