Case law

Cantu v. State

930 S.W.2d 594 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 18, 1996

“Merely because an attorney has been disciplined for some infraction of the rules by which he must abide is no reason for assuming that he is not a qualified and efficient lawyer. … Under the circumstances presented, 9 appellant has failed to establish a complete denial of the right to counsel.

Dowthitt v. State

931 S.W.2d 244 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 26, 1996

Moreover, given our emphasis on probable cause as a “factor” in other cases, situation four does not automatically establish custody; rather, custody is established if the manifestation of probable cause, combined with other … The witness was called back to the stand, told by the trial court that she now had judicial immunity from prosecution for perjury and assured her that she was not going to jail.

Medlock v. State

79 Tex. Crim. 322 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 29, 1916

The judge qualified it, stating, this testimony was admitted on the issue of suspended sentence. … made by the parties there — cursing and swearing and whooping and “hollering,” in the middle of the night, and that the people attending his dances were seen in the streets near his hall under the influence of whisky, was clearly

Ex Parte Van Alstyne

239 S.W.3d 815 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 14, 2007

This means that the record would also support a reasonable jurist’s conclusion that the applicant has not established mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence. … The 69 score that the defense doctor got clearly fits with what you see with regard to this defendant? A. Yes. Q.

Walker v. State

65 Tex. Crim. 615 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 20, 1912

It would clearly be admissible, where a defendant stood charged with a sale of intoxicating liquors, for him to show, by any evidence that would establish the fact, that he did not make such sale, that he had no whisky, that … Evidence is admitted to establish the truth of contested issues of fact, and is the means by which the truth of controversies are settled and established.

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

Ahearn v. State

588 S.W.2d 327 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 20, 1979

At an October 6th visit, Mary told Great-house that she had taken Johnny to the Rosewood Clinic for immunizations and had made arrangements to take the baby to a doctor at Bergstrom on October 20, 1976. … Article 37.09, V.A.C.C.P., provides: “An offense is a lesser included offense if: “(1) it is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; “(2) it

Turner v. State

805 S.W.2d 423 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 13, 1991

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish that appellant intentionally killed Hunter. … Clearly, the conduct of shooting the gun alone would not be sufficient to convict under the charge given. Appellant’s ninth point of error is overruled.

Cockrell v. State

144 Tex. Crim. 549 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 21, 1942

The accused was a salesman in a furniture establishment. … It is not given to a jury or to that class of people qualified to serve as such, to understand the purpose or the impulses of the man who would do the things proven in this case.

McGary v. State

750 S.W.2d 782 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 4, 1988

Further, appellant’s brief before the Court of Appeals clearly relies upon both lack of predicate and improper admission. … Hulin and Ash-ford are clearly distinguishable from the instant case on the facts. 7 . See 1 Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 690 (Tex.

Maynard v. State

685 S.W.2d 60 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 20, 1985

The record clearly reflects that the trial judge treated appellant’s motion as a motion in limine and granted it before the trial started. … It is an established general rule that evidence of prior criminal conduct that is collateral to the charge on which the defendant is being tried is inadmissible. Sanders v.

Kaufman v. State

70 Tex. Crim. 438 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 14, 1913

The court, in allowing this bill, qualified it with this explanation: “The court allowed the defendant to ask this witness about all indictments against him and also allowed defendant to ask him about thefts and burglaries … But, however that may be, we are of the opinion that the evidence which the jury believed, clearly established that appellant was guilty of receiving and concealing the stolen property as a principal, as charged in the indictment

Ex Parte Watson

306 S.W.3d 259 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 16, 2009

facts required to establish ] the commission of the offense charged’?” … pertaining to the type of “accident or mistake” involved, as in the present case), at least in the first step of our lesser-included-offense analysis. 6 Conclusion Because the offense of failure to yield right-of-way fails to qualify

EX PARTE Eric Michael HEILMAN, Appellee

456 S.W.3d 159 · 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

Garcia, Fernando v. Hon. Ernest B. White, P.J., 194th Dc, Dallas County

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 16, 2011

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. (Respondent's Exhibit C). 10.

Spears v. State

41 Tex. Crim. 527 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 21, 1900

The evidence was clearly admissible under the rule laid down in Hall v. State, 31 Texas Criminal Reports, 565; Wharton, Criminal Evidence, ninth edition, section 51, and authorities there cited. … When we begin to interpolate upon the time-honored definition of "express malice," and attempt to qualify it, we establish a precedent fraught with danger, and I am not willing to indorse such a departure.

Saulsbury v. State

43 Tex. Crim. 90 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 29, 1901

Then he quotes the following language of Justice Cooley: “That the regulation of hawkers .and peddlers is important, if not absolutely essential, may be taken as established by the practice of the several States. … The facts of this case clearly show he was a peddler under the decision in Emert’s case, supra. The Supreme Court of Maine, in State v.

Vigneault v. State

600 S.W.2d 318 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 11, 1980

Asbury’s affirmative answer to this question was held to have clearly disqualified her. 16 . The opinion in Smith v. … This confusion was clearly exacerbated by the trial judge’s phraseology in propounding questions to Payne.

Snead v. State

55 Tex. Crim. 583 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 20, 1909

And there shall be collected from every person, firm, corporation or association of persons for every separate establishment selling such liquors or medicated bitters within this State and located within any county, subdivision … An inspection of the statement of facts confirms the truth of the explanation made by the court, and in the light of this explanation the testimony was clearly hearsay.

Williams v. State

773 S.W.2d 525 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 21, 1988

In Reed , the Court established that, as far as exercise of federal habeas jurisdiction by a federal court reviewing a state criminal conviction, “cause” is established when novelty of a constitutional right could not reasonably … Each of these matters was testified to by witnesses for the State; nevertheless, each of the admitted photographs clearly were of probative value to the State’s case against appellant.