Case law

Duckett v. State

797 S.W.2d 906 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 10, 1990

Under our interpretation of the rules, such testimony which merely embraces an ultimate issue is clearly admissible under Rule 704. … Appellant established this was "subject ... upon which expert opinion would assist the jury.”) . This problem is not a product of modern society.

France v. State

148 Tex. Crim. 341 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 7, 1945

R. 312 . *349 Bill No. 18 is clearly without merit and we do not deem it necessary to enter upon an extended discussion thereof. … It is now the established rule in this state that when testimony which is similar to that objected to is introduced without objection, no reversible error is shown. See Weaver v. State, 165 S. W. (2d) 106 ; Bussey v.

Millican v. State

63 Tex. Crim. 440 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 25, 1911

The -court in allowing this bill, qualified it as follows: “Mr. … The first five bills are clearly insufficient to require this court to pass upon either of them. See sections 857, p. 557, and 1123, p. 732, of White’s.

Contreras, Saul

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. … CONTRERAS — 29 attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.”66 Essentially, the State must prove (1) an underlying felony,67 (2) an act clearly dangerous to human life

Hall v. State

141 Tex. Crim. 607 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 2, 1941

It is the well-established rule in this State that where the accused objects' to the admission of testimony, a part of which is admissible and a part of which is not, that he must single out and separate the objectionable … The court qualified the bill and in his qualification states that he then and there told the jury-men that the indictment was not any evidence and should not be so construed by them.

Martinez v. State

763 S.W.2d 413 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 21, 1988

Certainly, irrespective, you’ve been asked here many times, you know, you always do this and never do that, and to be qualified or not qualified as a juror you would do that and the other. … I’d say that doesn’t qualify. [Prosecutor]: Objection to the personal opinion.

Mikeska v. State

79 Tex. Crim. 109 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 17, 1916

After qualifying as an expert on insanity, Dr. … This testimony was clearly admissible.

Bowman v. State

38 Tex. Crim. 14 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 26, 1897

The testimony of the State's witness Austin, who testified that he purchased the whisky from defendant, does not establish the venue, and there is no other testimony on the point. … This decision clearly decides the point that the fact that one fact proved which makes a prima facie case does not in any case shift the burden of proof.

Contreras, Saul

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

Daniels v. State

167 Tex. Crim. 219 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 26, 1958

Clearly, part of the argument set forth was proper as a plea for the enforcement of the law. In Cogdell v. State, 137 Texas Cr. … Rep. 56 , 218 S.W. 2d 58 , this court said: “It is the well established rule that if a part of an argument is justified and part is not, then the objection should be directed specifically to the unauthorized remarks.

Denham v. State

428 S.W.2d 814 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 8, 1968

Under the record appellant’s arrest without a warrant being lawful, the incidental search of appellant’s person was clearly authorized. Chambler v. State, supra. … Appellant’s formal bills of exception as qualified by the court, to which qualifications the record reflects no exception was taken, shows no reversible error. The judgment is affirmed. 1 .

Roberts, Donnie Lee

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.

Johnson, Matthew Lee

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 18, 2015

The trial court’s ruling in the third step must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous. Blackman, 414 S.W.3d at 765. … In short, the record does not establish that the trial court’s conclusion (i.e., that the State’s race-neutral explanations were genuine) was clearly erroneous. See id. at 452.

Russeau v. State

171 S.W.3d 871 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 29, 2005

Thus, if the evidence in this case established burglary, we need not examine whether there was sufficient evidence to show robbery. … A clearly wrong and unjust verdict occurs when the jury’s finding “shocks the conscience” or “clearly demonstrates bias.” Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).

Simpson v. State

45 Tex. Crim. 320 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 9, 1903

Clearly such testimony would not be admissible for defendant. The seventh bill complains that “defendant offered to prove by witness J. H. Herring as follows: (Q. … In this character of prosecution testimony of this sort would necessarily be resorted to pro and con in order to establish or refute the case.

Carlton Priester v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 30, 2015

Bertram’s counsel further pointed out that he had requested a letter of immunity in exchange for his testimony, but the State had refused his request. … The prosecutor then argued that the evidence presented at trial clearly demonstrated that Appellant acted with an intent to cause Banks’ death or to cause serious bodily injury to Banks, by engaging in an act clearly dangerous

Sattiewhite v. State

600 S.W.2d 277 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 7, 1980

as any type of judgment although it does qualify as an order setting aside the sentence." … Viewing the Moore rule for what it is, the instant case clearly falls within the ambit of that rule.

Porch v. State

51 Tex. Crim. 7 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 13, 1907

This statute clearly authorizes the examining court to proceed with the examination even if appellant waives ■ his right of trial. … Louisiana, 194 Supreme Court Rep., 265, and has never been qualified by said court.

Del Carmen Hernandez v. State

273 S.W.3d 685 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 15, 2008

The statement offered by the State through Damiani was clearly testimonial under Crawford 18 and Davis v. … This clearly falls within the ambit of the Crawford decision.

Granviel v. State

552 S.W.2d 107 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 10, 1976

“[A]ppoint disinterested qualified experts to examine the defendant . . . ” clearly means that such expert is not appointed by the court as the expert of the State or the defense, but is the court’s disinterested expert. … Appellant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination or systematic exclusion of a cognizable group or class of qualified citizens. This ground of error is overruled.