Case law

Tobin v. Broadfoot

160 Tex. Crim. 190 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 26, 1954

Such a precedent should not be established to fit a particular case. Article 358, C.C.P., prescribes the method to be pursued when any person is selected as a grand juror and how such grand juror may be challenged. … I can conceive the clamor that would arise if this court went into executive session and, without notice of our intention to do so, declared that a certain state official was not qualified to hold his office and entered an

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

Ward v. State

659 S.W.2d 643 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 14, 1983

After following the truck for approximately five blocks, Officer Lybrand established that the truck was traveling 50 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone. … The inventory search was not conducted for no reason as the appellant contends; clearly, Officer Lybrand could not have properly allowed the appellant to drive away from the scene without a driver's license.

Black v. State

46 Tex. Crim. 590 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 16, 1904

The court qualifies each bill with the same statement, at some length setting out the warning and attending circumstances in .regard to confessions. … If the testimony of the witnesses Davis, Phares and Turner is to be believed, then all the necessary facts to show express malice were clearly proved.

Wade, Robert Eric Iii

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 6, 2022

Wade - 5 On re-direct, Appellant then qualified his earlier testimony by suggesting that he had no medical basis for opining that Sughrue was disfigured. … Appellant’s testimony did nothing to undermine or refute the evidence clearly giving rise to an affirmative finding of serious permanent disfigurement here.

Tolbert, Vickie Lashun

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 17, 2010

If the State can abandon the charged offense in favor of a lesser-included offense, there is no logical reason why the State could not abandon its unqualified pursuit of the charged offense in favor of a qualified pursuit … Thus, the record clearly shows the prosecutor's intense focus on the lesser-included offense.

Delapaz, Mark

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 25, 2009

And his incentive is he's trying to keep himself out of prison because we'll show you when he testified the first time in the grand jury he was given immunity. Appellant did not have to wait his turn to show that Mr. … But this is not like the case where the "State's direct evidence clearly establishes the intent element and that evidence is not contradicted by appellant nor undermined by appellant's cross-examination of the State's witnesses

Cannady v. State

11 S.W.3d 205 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 5, 2000

So a disruptive inmate might be punished for one offense committed in prison, but would ever after be immunized from further prosecution and punishment. … While we held that the legislative intent of Article 42.08 was clearly to deter inmates from continued criminal behavior, it is equally clear that the Legislature did not contemplate the sentence of death when considering

Canales v. State

98 S.W.3d 690 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 15, 2003

Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that “three or more persons who collaborate in carrying on criminal activities were involved in the [victim’s] death, as is required under the statute to establish … The comment must clearly refer to the accused’s failure to testify, and it is not sufficient if it “might be construed as an implied or indirect allusion.” Id.

Figaroa v. State

58 Tex. Crim. 611 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 6, 1910

They were overruled by the court, and this bill is thus qualified: “The said testimony was offered by the State for the avoAved purpose of sliOAving a conspiracy between defendant and the Solises and the court permitted the … evidence to be introduced on the assurance of the district attorney, made in the presence and hearing of the jury, that the State would be able to establish such a conspiracy from the evidence; after the evidence was all

Cockrell, Darrell Lynn

424 S.W.3d 543 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 12, 2014

Proc. art. 38.31(a) (providing that, “If the court is notified by a party that the defendant is deaf ... the court shall appoint a qualified interpreter!)]”). … Trial testimony describing an impairment is not required to establish any of the above.

Ex Parte Keith

47 Tex. Crim. 283 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 23, 1904

least twelve days prior to the day of the election, which election shall be held and return thereof made, in conformity with the provisions of the general laws of the State, and by the officers of election appointed and qualified … (Hence it is, a rule founded in reason as well as in abundant authority, that, in order to give an act, not covering the entire ground of an earlier one, nor clearly intended as a substitute for it, the effect of repealing

Hart v. State

447 S.W.2d 944 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 12, 1969

The acts of sodomy were clearly res gestae of the offense charged and were admissible as facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense on the occasion in question. See Vavra v. … Evans for the hearing on the motion for new trial, it being his claim that she was not a qualified juror since she was neither a householder in the county nor freeholder in the State.

Lee v. State

164 Tex. Crim. 279 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 9, 1957

Appellant’s counsel had argued that it was clearly established that it belonged to the injured party because no witness had denied such fact. … We have concluded that this argument was clearly provoked by the argument of defense counsel, and hence presents no reversible error.

Ex parte Mode

180 S.W. 708 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 13, 1915

Clearly not that the act should be a law or not be; for the law already existed. Indeed, it was not delegated to the people to decide anything. … This is clearly explained by the author in Cooley’s Const. Lim. (7th E'd.) pp. 173, 174, and is further illustrated and applied under similar statutes in Dalby v. Wolf, 14 Iowa, 228 ; Davis v.

Goodspeed v. State

187 S.W.3d 390 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 6, 2005

explain the range of punishment as being "probation up to ninety-nine years or life" and asked the prospective jurors if they could consider the full range of punishment, the court of appeals felt that the State did not clearly … State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Crim.App.1997), we stated that, except for certain federal constitutional errors deemed structural by the United States Supreme Court, no error is categorically immune from a harmless error

Goodwin v. State

158 S.W. 274 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 4, 1913

In allowing appellant’s bill to the overruling of her motion, the court qualified it by stating: “When Mrs. … Even if we could consider this bill, such testimony by them was clearly admissible. Mackey v. State, 151 S. W. 802 , and cases there cited in the rehearing opinion.

Moore v. State

999 S.W.2d 385 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 21, 1999

Specifically, appellant asserts that “the jury panel was in place” and “that the court began qualifying jurors without counsel or defendant present.” … The Court: “Because I was qualifying them as jurors for the week and not for this case at that time, I didn’t feel it necessary to have anybody else here.

Montgomery v. State

68 Tex. Crim. 78 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 30, 1912

If, under the law as herein given you in charge, and the testimony of the witnesses, the guilt of the defendant has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, it devolves on the defendant to establish his insanity at the … established by proof from any source; if it has, the law excuses him from criminal liability, and you should acquit him.