Case law

Wright v. State

981 S.W.2d 197 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 9, 1998

Presumably, the physician in Mexico did not fall within those categories. 2 Nevertheless, the “Except as authorized by this chapter” phrase clearly indicates that other provisions may establish a defense to prosecution. … See § 481.036 (for listing of Schedule V substances). *203 The question, then, is whether appellant qualifies an “ultimate user” under Texas law.

Bonilla, Rosali

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 12, 2014

“It is now established beyond doubt that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 821. … An issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief. Id.

Jones v. State

63 Tex. Crim. 394 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 25, 1911

The testimony clearly justified the jury to believe that it weighed from five to seven pounds. … This testimony clearly justified the jury in finding and believing that the head of the child had been mashed in; that its neck had been broken.

McManus v. State

591 S.W.2d 505 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 5, 1979

Thus, the indictment clearly sets out the acts committed by appellant constituting the offense. … Illinois, nor did he request any opportunity to determine whether the juror was still qualified under Witherspoon, nor is there any showing in the record that the juror was qualified under Witherspoon.

Davis v. State

329 S.W.3d 798 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 29, 2010

The proponent must establish that the expert has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the specific issue before the court that would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular subject … In the instant case, we need not address whether the appellant established a prima facie case.

Ex Parte Hollingsworth

83 Tex. Crim. 400 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 1918

court said: “It should never be held that Congress intends to supersede or, by its legislation, suspend the exercise of the police powers of the States even when it may do so, unless its purpose to effect that result is clearly … The extent to which the President has deemed it necessary and advisable to make such regulations is embraced in his order establishing a zone around military camps.

Batiste v. State

888 S.W.2d 9 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 14, 1994

In essence, appellant would have this Court hold that trial counsel should be deemed ineffective per se if he forfeits any constitutional error that has been held immune from a harm analysis. … However, the majority cites several cases in which the Court has clearly described the unfairness which results. Id.

Garcia v. State

522 S.W.2d 203 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 30, 1975

With regard to appellant’s contention that malice was not shown, it is well established that malice can be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon. Turner *206 v. … However, appellant’s counsel stated that he was not a qualified chemist. Before the statement of opinion of a witness in regard to any fact in issue is admissible, he must be competent and qualified to testify.

Robinson, Leo Demory

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.

Aud and Townsend v. State

36 Tex. Crim. 76 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 6, 1896

It was clearly their ¿ffity, if the State had neglected to do so, to probe this subject, to sound him to the bottom, by asking him the nature of the conclusion, the source from which he obtained his information about the … We have examined the.record very carefully in this respect, and to our minds the evidence establishes the perpetration of a crime that in atrocity is rarely met with in the annals of any country.

Berkley, William

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 6, 2005

However, she also clearly indicated that she would not necessarily be so inclined to believe a police officer in other situations. … 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." Jones v. State , 982 S.W.2d 386, 394 (Tex. Cr. App. 1998).

State of Texas v. Guerrero, Ex Parte Marcelino

400 S.W.3d 576 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 5, 2013

The facts of this case establish without a doubt that Defendant, Marcelino Guerrero, was never properly admonished about the consequences of his plea and clearly establishes harm to Defendant resulting in his … infinitesimal chance that, if he did not plead guilty, he would (1) be found not guilty; (2) be able to remain undetected in the United States as an undocumented alien for the next ten years without being detained; (3) qualify

Cobb, Travis

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 26, 2025

And although all parties likely acted in good faith, Gamez clearly stated he identified Applicant in the lineup based on his beard and skin color. … Almost 40 years later, the alternate suspect admitted, with a full grant of immunity, that he had committed perjury multiple times by claiming he had not had sex with the victim for weeks prior to her murder, and had in

Montoya v. State

810 S.W.2d 160 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 19, 1991

However, she then immediately qualified her answer: “A. But you’re not talking about sentence him to death; right? “Q. … The record clearly demonstrates that Guajardo had trouble understanding English and thus was excludable under Art. 35.16(a)(ll).

Slack v. State

61 Tex. Crim. 372 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 1, 1911

To ascertain this intent it is the duty of the court to find, by other established rules, what was the fair, natural and probable intent of the Legislature. … This holding is in direct conflict with the specific terms of the Act, and the clearly expressed intention of the Legislature.

Benson, Yusulf Shaheed

459 S.W.3d 67 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 15, 2015

State, we observed that the “prior intoxication-related offenses ... serve the purpose of establishing whether the instant offense qualifies as felony driving while intoxicated. … three prior offenses to establish fourth-offense DWI); State v.

Valcarcel v. State

765 S.W.2d 412 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 1, 1989

Does the above mean that Officer Williams’ testimony about the drug courier profile that he compiled after attending the one-day seminar in Amarillo establish that it was admitted in the jury’s presence to establish probable … In this instance, appellant’s trial attorney clearly objected to Officer Williams’ testimony on the ground that it was irrelevant to any issue that was then before the jury.

Cave v. State

161 Tex. Crim. 107 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 5, 1955

The court qualified the bill by certifying that appellant’s counsel in his argument had explained to the jury the effect of the suspended sentence law. We perceive no reversible error reflected by this bill. … On the issue of the appellant’s intoxication, the state clearly had the right to show his conduct for a considerable length of time prior to the collision.

Shipp v. State

331 S.W.3d 433 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 2, 2011

37 Clearly, a store receipt falls within this definition. … These uses are sufficient to qualify a store receipt as a “document of commerce” within what we find to be the broader legislative intent.

Hurst v. State

40 Tex. Crim. 378 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1898

that this lays a heavier burden upon appellant than is authorized by our decisions, which merely puts the burden of proof on appellant to establish his insanity; indeed, that "clearly proven" is tantamount to saying that … this defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and that it is not necessary for him to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt; and especially where the charge uses the expression "clearly proved" this should be qualified by