Case law

Mendez v. State

138 S.W.3d 334 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 30, 2004

We agree with the lower court that this language clearly does not contemplate a forfeiture of the statutory right from a mere failure to object at trial. … “Now, whenever a fact is to be found by a jury, upon the truth of which the life and liberty of the citizen depends, and the testimony of an accomplice is relied upon to establish the truth of such fact, the rule contained

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.

Kirksey v. State

61 Tex. Crim. 641 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 1, 1911

The appellant then stated to the court that the purpose of said inquiry was to establish the fact that the witness Jordan had formerly made a complaint against Ed Kennon for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and afterwards … The court refused to allow this bill, or in allowing it qualified it as follows: “I had been privately advised, I think, by defendant’s counsel, of what they wanted to prove as to the Ed Kennon complaint, and had advised

Marquez v. State

921 S.W.2d 217 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 1, 1996

withdraw a jury waiver or whether the defendant should bear the burden of making an affirmative showing that the State would not be prejudiced thereby. 1 The majority holds that the burden is placed on the defendant to establish … While these cases make sense in the contexts presented, placing the burden on the defendant in the instant context is not so clearly logical.

State v. White

306 S.W.3d 753 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 10, 2010

evidence, White summed up that evidence as he saw it and argued to the trial court as follows: “We’ve got a seventeen-year delay in this case with witnesses dying like flies over here, because they’re all sharing Acquired Immune … Clearly we can’t cross-examine all of the people who’ve passed away, including one of the lead suspects.

Carver v. State

510 S.W.2d 349 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 1, 1974

Such predicate must be clearly and satisfactorily established before such testimony can be reproduced. 1 Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 99, p. 112. In Barber v. … Where the State seeks to reproduce testimony of an absent witness given at a prior hearing, it has the burden of establishing an exception to the right of confrontation. See Whitehead v.

Mathews v. State

635 S.W.2d 532 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 14, 1982

The prosecuting attorney never refuted Blackwell’s statement nor did the trial judge qualify or disapprove that the statement was not made in the form Blackwell stated it was made. … “The remarks must not only be improper, but they must be of such a nature as would be clearly calculated to prejudice the rights of [the] defendant.” Tweedle v. State, 29 Tex.App. 586 , 16 S.W. 544, 545 (1891).

Losada v. State

721 S.W.2d 305 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 29, 1986

That’s clearly an indication of sexual assault. … Clearly the underlined portion of the argument was not a comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.

Hogue v. State

711 S.W.2d 9 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 19, 1986

The evidence clearly shows two acts. We find that the State clearly proved the commission of a capital murder. … This is clearly not like the situation presented in Van Sickle v.

Casanova, Matthew John

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 21, 2012

Discounting Garza's own accomplice testimony that directly established the appellant's complicity, the remaining evidence unfolded as follows. … The appellant cites a number of cases from other jurisdictions in support of his argument that trial court error in failing to read the jury charge aloud should be immune from a harm analysis.

Kaisner v. State

780 S.W.2d 226 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 4, 1989

This latter situation is presented in this case; the facts establish appellant only asked Robinson not to seek office. … Penal Code § 1.07(a)(30)(E) a public servant may be a candidate for public office even if he has not yet qualified for that office (by paying filing fees). 4.

Overton, Hannah Ruth

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 17, 2014

Paramedics arrived and established an airway into the child, but he was not making any spontaneous movements. … Both prongs of the Strickland test have been established.

Bellamy v. State

742 S.W.2d 677 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 16, 1987

Because of this lack of clarity in the qualifying instructions, a reasonable jury could well have found the presumption here to be mandatory. … Clearly this requires that the predicate fact have more than just the minimal probativeness necessary to render it admissible as "relevant” to establish the elemental fact.

Hernandez, Maria Del Carmen

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 15, 2008

Hernandez - 7 The statement offered by the State through Damiani was clearly testimonial under Crawford17 and Davis v. … This clearly falls within the ambit of the Crawford decision.

Hernandez, Maria Del Carmen

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 15, 2008

The statement offered by the State through Damiani was clearly testimonial under Crawford (17) and Davis v. … This clearly falls within the ambit of the Crawford decision.

Ex Parte Hernandez

275 S.W.3d 895 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 28, 2009

But under Keller, nothing prevents the robbery conviction from qualifying as a "holding" conviction, because applicant was in fact serving a sentence for the robbery on the date of his UUMV revocation. … Clearly, the legislature desired to award non-custodial time credit only to parolees who, when released on mandatory supervision, have convictions for only non-violent offenses.

Vanderbilt v. State

629 S.W.2d 709 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 23, 1981

Thus, the evidence establishes that the vehicle had distinctive recognizable characteristics. … We will submit she is a qualified juror.” The State’s Attorney then reexamined Mrs. Sells and elicited the following: “Q.

Roy v. State

608 S.W.2d 645 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 12, 1980

Finally, the fact that a conspiracy existed between appellant and Barker is clearly in-ferable from the evidence. … She testified, in essence, that the population of Tarrant County is in excess of 800,000; there are in excess of 300,000 qualified voters in Tarrant County; she was aware of the publicity surrounding “Westwind” defendants

Galvin v. State

129 Tex. Crim. 349 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 27, 1935

The bills are further qualified to the effect that it was not shown in the testimony that said witnesses had knowledge of the facts mentioned. … It is apparent from the qualification that the trial court entertained *Page 359 the view that it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish by direct proof the fact that the witnesses knew of the incidents mentioned before