Case law

Garcia v. White

357 S.W.3d 373 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 16, 2011

mandamus relief: (1) no adequate remedy at law; and (2) proof of a "clear right to the relief sought — that is to say, when the facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-settled ..., and clearly … Mims is listed as an attorney qualified for appointment to death-penalty cases in the First Administrative Judicial Region.

Medellin, Ex Parte Jose Ernesto

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. … We will address whether the Avena decision or the Presidential memorandum qualify as a new factual or legal basis under Section 5(a)(1) separately. 1.

Rodriguez v. State

486 S.W.2d 355 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 25, 1972

The State argued: “. . . this evidence is clearly admissible ... it would be certainly relative on both points, intent and motive.” The objection of defense counsel was overruled. … On the other hand, the defendant may always offer evidence, if there is any, to show the absence or lack of motive tending to prove his innocence. 4 .When using the term “absence” or “lack of motive,” it should be qualified

Burgess v. State

108 Tex. Crim. 48 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 20, 1927

As one of his grounds for a rehearing, appellant earnestly insists that his bill of exception No. 14 clearly manifests error. … We are of the opinion that appellant’s bill of exception, as qualified, manifests no error.

Cawthon v. State

849 S.W.2d 346 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 14, 1992

is sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to deliver 28 grams or more but less than 400 grams of amphetamine, in that the proof of aggregate weight of the substance containing amphetamine fails to qualify … See Act, §§ 1.02(4), (15)(F) and (20); 4.02(c)(3); 4.031(a), (c) and (d)(1). 2 Upon its reading of our prior opinions the court of appeals basically concluded *350 that language in § 1.02(15)(F), ante, “clearly eliminates

Schepps v. State

432 S.W.2d 926 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 15, 1968

In separate trials of the accomplice where other evidence has clearly established the principal’s guilt, the convenience of introducing the principal’s confession is not apparently greater than the convenience of admitting … One could speculate at length as to why people confess— fear, duress, conscience, revenge, reward, offers of immunity or leniency, etc.

McCrea v. State

494 S.W.2d 821 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 23, 1973

They all related that they did not take into consideration age as a factor in their attempt to find qualified grand jurors. Relying upon Turner v. … The objections were on the basis of the Fifth Amendment; and the court had some difficulty in getting the counsel to clearly state his objection.

Gardner v. State

730 S.W.2d 675 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 25, 1987

[BY DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We submit she is qualified, your Honor.” … Additionally, in exchange for apparent transactional immunity against prosecution for the capital murder, Sanders agreed to testify.

Smith v. State

646 S.W.2d 452 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 9, 1983

the facts to qualify a declaration as part of the res gestae is on the proponent of such evidence.” … At the moment it was made, extraneous offenses were established.

Garcia v. State

581 S.W.2d 168 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 11, 1979

The charge in the instant case was clearly not fundamentally erroneous. … Clearly, evidence of pri- or offenses falls within the range of “prior criminal conduct.”

Solis v. State

492 S.W.2d 561 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 28, 1973

Under the circumstances there is clearly no reversible error. … After his qualifications were established he testified he had treated the deceased. Then, upon the State’s motion, the jury was removed so that the relevancy of his testimony could be established. Dr.

Bird v. State

141 Tex. Crim. 135 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 15, 1941

We think this was clearly a res gestae statement and admissible as such. Bill of Exception No. 10 complains of the action of the court in declining to permit the State to ask Dr. … The court qualified the bill and in his qualification states that appellant merely objected without stating any ground of objection. Appellant accepted the bill as qualified and is therefore bound thereby.

Hovila v. State

532 S.W.2d 293 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 11, 1976

It appears that the original opinion holds that the only way a juror could be challenged for cause by the State would be by establishing that he would automatically vote against the imposition of the death penalty in any … “Furthermore, clearly implicit in the record, based on the position of counsel for both sides throughout the jury selection process, is the fact that each agreed that the prospective jurors found by the Court to be disqualified

Mooney v. State

76 Tex. Crim. 539 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 3, 1915

These facts were thoroughly established by many witnesses, and in no way disputed. … S., 5126) requires the commissioners to swear they will not knowingly select any man as a juror whom they believe to be unfit and not qualified.

McQuarrie, Thomas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 10, 2012

deliberations does not qualify as such. … We would emphasize, however, that our reference to, and reliance on, a debate “in two law reviews” for support is actually derived from a Texas Supreme Court opinion, which clearly recognized the uncertainty surrounding

McQuarrie, Thomas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 10, 2012

held that any additional evidence that a juror brings into deliberations does not qualify as such. … We would emphasize, however, that our reference to, and reliance on, a debate "in two law reviews" for support is actually derived from a Texas Supreme Court opinion, which clearly recognized the uncertainty surrounding the

Schenekl v. State

30 S.W.3d 412 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 25, 2000

If checkpoints were established only at public docks, lakeside residents would be forever immune from compliance with boating regulations. … Id. at § 31.043 (vessels manufactured in Texas for sale and vessels sold, numbered or titled in Texas shall carry manufacturer's hull identification number clearly imprinted on structure of vessel or displayed on plate permanently

Green, Gary David

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 28, 2025

.9 This can be true when a statute at issue is unambiguous or when a proposition of law is clearly established by “the combined weight of our precedents.”10 But mandamus “will not lie to resolve 5 … The State contends that Judge Wright was not qualified to preside over a capital habeas proceeding because she has only been a county-court-at-law judge.

Melton v. State

63 Tex. Crim. 362 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 18, 1911

As qualified by the judge, it showed no diligence. … Clearly, this bill does not show any error on the part of the court.

Bell v. State

442 S.W.2d 716 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 21, 1969

cases collated at 13A Tex.Dig., Criminal Law <®=>1169(2). *721 As her fifteenth ground of error, appellant complains of the overruling of her objection to certain testimony of a police officer on the ground that he was not qualified … State, Tex.Cr.App., 436 S.W.2d 146 , is misplaced because Chatterfield was not a murder case where evidence of appellant’s attitude toward deceased shortly before the murder occurred would be relevant in establishing malice