Case law

Pruitt, Jr. v. State

114 Tex. Crim. 281 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 8, 1930

The scarf’s identity was only one of the circumstances relied on by the State to establish the slayer’s identity. … The Court qualified appellant’s bill to show that these names, together with the date of the robbery, were specifically mentioned in order to identify the different transactions.

Battaglia, John David

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 18, 2005

The trial court's decision to allow the evidence was clearly within the zone of reasonable disagreement. There was no abuse of discretion. Point of error eleven is overruled. … or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard.

Jones v. State

982 S.W.2d 386 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 16, 1998

The venire comprises so many jurors who are clearly qualified that it is unnecessary to err by denying a challenge for cause on a close question. We overrule the holding of Payton v. … In non-capital murder cases, if the trial court erroneously grants a State's challenge for cause and excludes a qualified juror, the defendant may establish harm simply by showing that the State exhausted all of its peremptory

Carpenter v. Stated

108 Tex. Crim. 33 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 5, 1927

W. 532 , and under the facts, clearly presents the law of accomplice testimony. … the rule that whether the defendant be in custody or not, his oral or written confession is admissible, if in connection therewith he makes statements of facts or circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish

Black, Jr. v. State

137 Tex. Crim. 173 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 22, 1939

Unless an indictment charged one of these ways as specified in the statutes, it would be clearly insufficient in law. That is so by reason of the statutes. … Such independent proof is required by the law to establish the corpus delicti.

Conger v. State

63 Tex. Crim. 312 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 18, 1911

The judge, in allowing this bill, qualified it by stating this: “With the request that the statement of facts be referred to in connection with this bill.” … The defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal evidence, and in case you have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, you must acquit. “15th.

Wolfe v. State

509 S.W.3d 325 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 15, 2017

Although we recognize that a medical license does not “automatically qualify the holder to testify as an expert on every medical question,” if the offering party has “established] that the expert has knowledge, skill, experience … , training, or education regarding the specific issue before the court,” then the expert is qualified to render an opinion on that issue.

Nava, Andres Maldonado

415 S.W.3d 289 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 18, 2013

He claimed that the “State has found this magic word in this transcript” and that a more qualified and educated expert said that it was not there, that no Spanish-speaking officer had said it was, and that “it never came … Or, as in Gelinas , the instruction may clearly give the wrong law and also be obviously wrong to a layperson. In the present case, the instruction does not even clearly give the jury the wrong law. .

Hamilton v. State

68 Tex. Crim. 419 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 15, 1913

Judge Porter qualifies this with the following explanation: “This witness, Annie Wood, first testified in regard to defendant’s illicit connection with her before the grand jury, after having been promised immunity from prosecution … State, 13 Texas Crim, App., 340, it is said: “To establish the crime thus charged it was essential that the State should prove that Ann McGrew, the mother, was the lawful wife of defendant.

Vega, Jose Luis Jr.

394 S.W.3d 514 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 20, 2013

The couple split up, so that his wife would qualify for assistance as a single mother. Appellant also said that he was in danger of losing the salesman job he had held for several years. … As the State points out, the prosecutor “thoroughly impeached appellant’s tale of woe on cross-examination,” 29 establishing that: (1) appellant’s first drug sale at Fantasy Ranch occurred before his August 5th drug delivery

State of Texas v. Heilman, Ex Parte Eric Michael

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 18, 2015

I join the majority because I believe Phillips qualifies as that type of precedent. … That almost every member of this Court agrees to a result in contravention of the one Phillips clearly requires further demonstrates the unworkability of Phillips.4 The majority is correct; either this case goes or Phillips

Smith v. State

46 Tex. Crim. 267 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1904

We think the evidence in this case clearly shows, from the State's standpoint, that there was a conspiracy. … her, is clearly admissible to illustrate and show the animus and malice she had toward deceased.

Knox v. State

744 S.W.2d 53 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 30, 1987

As a result, the standard established in Adams v. … , she clearly and unequivocally affirmed that she could not clearly and fairly evaluate the testimony of a police officer, and thus was properly excused for cause.”

Branch v. State

73 Tex. Crim. 471 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 1, 1914

P.) also provides that when from any cause there are no regular jurors for the week from whom to select a jury the court shall order the sheriff to summon forthwith such number of qualified persons as may be deemed expedient … It has so long been the well established law of this State that in misdemeanor eases the only way this court is authorized to consider complaints of the charge of the court and the refusal of special charges requested, is

Barefoot v. State

596 S.W.2d 875 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 12, 1980

After the punishment alternatives and procedure were better explained, Latsha clearly stated that he would affirmatively answer the punishment issues only if the State met its burden of proof and that he believed death to … to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard.

Guerrero v. State

305 S.W.3d 546 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 9, 2009

the possession-with-intent-to-deliver offense and evidence of appellant’s intent to deliver is not required to establish the manufacturing offense. … Finally, the concurring opinion cites no authority to support its assertion that “[ajppellate courts are not bound by prose-cutorial theories when deciding whether the trial record clearly establishes a double-jeopardy violation

Vinson, Raymond Earl

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 indicates that the appellant was not present when Hollimon recounted the details of the assault.

Vinson, Raymond Earl

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2008

App. 1995) (citing Rule 104(a) in stating that “The State, as the proponent of the evidence, had the burden of proving to the trial court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that . . . testimony qualified as an adoptive … This passage clearly shows that Chapman had removed the appellant prior to interviewing Hollimon about the details of the assault.

Smith v. State

227 S.W.3d 753 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 27, 2007

The 1993 amendment clearly broadened “the categories of potentially admissible evidence at punishment.” 29 But as to at least one of those new categories, namely, extraneous misconduct evidence, the amendment expressly added … information from evidence presented in a formal courtroom proceeding in *764 assessing punishment within the legislatively prescribed range. 40 This is not to say, of course, that a state’s sentencing procedure is wholly “immune

Burris v. State

276 S.W.2d 260 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 15, 1953

Such amended motion for new trial was clearly an amendment to the first amended motion for new trial and was not authorized. … It is the appellant's contention that the witness was not qualified to answer the question because the witness, though admitted to be a qualified expert medical witness, was not a ballistic expert.