Case law

Marshall v. State

104 Tex. Crim. 619 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 14, 1926

Bill of exceptions No. 6 does not appear to have been qualified. … However, it is not a prejudicial error to permit leading questions where they relate to acts not controverted, or where the point sought to be established is already proven and in these questions the fact established may

Rose v. State

124 Tex. Crim. 377 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 17, 1933

In support of the conclusion of the learned trial judge that the testimony was admissible in evidence against the appelllant, he refers, in qualifying the bill of exception, to the following cases: Jones v. … State, 6 Texas App., 384, in which it is made plain that under the law of this state, in order to establish handwriting by comparison, it is essential that there must be proof clearly showing that the document used for comparison

Goad v. State

464 S.W.2d 129 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 17, 1971

In Arthur the court noted the well established rule that it is never competent for the State in the first instance to prove the person slain was peaceable and inoffensive unless the opposite has been offered by the defense … The same clearly does not comply with the provisions of Article 40.09, Sec. 9, V.A.C.C.P., and nothing is presented for review.

Garrison v. State

54 Tex. Crim. 600 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 25, 1908

The court qualifies the bill in signing, it, as follows: “Filed and approved with the explanation that a written charge1 was not requested except special charges and no objection made to oral charge.” … It has further been held by this court in an unbroken line of authorities, it seems, that in a misdemanor case a verbal charge can only be given by consent of the parties, and it is clearly erroneous to give such charge over

WOOD, DAVID v. the State of Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 2024

And the Skinner case he cited is clearly distinguishable. Skinner and Appellant were each convicted before Chapter 64 was enacted. … And several of his key ancillary motions are clearly without merit. And many of his motions were, by any reasonable definition, late.

Mooney v. State

817 S.W.2d 693 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 2, 1991

In fact, trial counsel recalled and diligently requestioned each of the previously qualified veniremember about whether they had overheard any remarks about the case. … In accordance with that agreement, the peremptory challenges were made only after a sufficient number of prospective jurors were qualified and not successfully challenged for cause.

Harris v. State

457 S.W.2d 903 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 23, 1970

prospective jurors were excused by the court merely because they held conscientious scruples against inflicting the death penalty in violation of Witherspoon where he made no objection to their removal and no attempt to qualify … There the Court said: “It was not the duty of the trial court to take other steps toward attempting to qualify the veniremen, and the Wither-spoon case, supra, should not be construed as imposing this additional duty upon

West v. State

134 Tex. Crim. 565 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 26, 1938

All the circumstances proved, when considered together, clearly establish the falsity of their statements to Mrs. Barfield, and their fraudulent intent. … The conspiracy may not have been shown at that time, but the introduction of subsequent testimony established a conspiracy between the parties.

Motley v. State

773 S.W.2d 283 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 5, 1989

Clearly the facts of the instant case when compared with the cases set out above easily allow a finding of “deliberateness.” … Clearly this was a strategy on the part of defense counsel.

Mirick v. State

83 Tex. Crim. 388 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 1918

This was clearly too late, and the court did not err in refusing to grant the application at the time. Muldrew v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 465 , 166 S. W. 156 , and authorities there cited. … It is well established that before a witness can be impeached the proper predicate must be laid, and unless it is laid the impeaching testimony is inadmissible. 1 Branch’s Ann. P.

Garcia v. State

868 S.W.2d 337 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 22, 1993

As we stated in part II, the medical examiner’s office is a public office or agency established by statute. Art. 49.25, § 1. … There are cases, for instance, someone is clearly murdered and it's not going to trial or for whatever reason, we don't turn anything over.

ALKAYYALI, TAREQ v. the State of Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 7, 2025

Alkayyali — 23 or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.” … While we do not suggest that the evidence establishing the murder was legally insufficient, it is enough to say in this case that the issue of the cause of death was contested.

Ex Parte Thompson

179 S.W.3d 549 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 9, 2005

The evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that applicant participated in the murder of Mr. Rahim and intended his death. … As the Fifth Circuit explained: The evidence was clearly sufficient to establish that Aguilar participated in the murder of Leo, Sr.

Covey, John Christopher Jr.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 2010

Apparently, the Council on Sex Offender Treatment has not published a list of reportable offenses for which one could request early termination, but that is not to say that appellant would definitely never qualify for release … And because this finding is clearly supported by the record, we should adopt it. (10) Although the trial judge correctly noted that sex offender registration is a matter that the law categorizes as "non-punitive" and "remedial

Ross v. State

156 Tex. Crim. 164 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 19, 1950

jury rolls, establishes the discrimination which the Constitution forbids.’ … It may be a long time before this court again has before it a record which so clearly and indisputably presents the sole question of Constitutional law involved.

Covey, John Christopher Jr.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 31, 2010

And because this finding is clearly supported by the record, we should adopt it.10 Although the trial judge correctly noted that sex offender registration is a matter that the law categorizes as “non-punitive” and … Defendant shall not use pornography or erotica or frequent adult book stores, sex shops, topless bars, massage parlors and like establishments; 24.

State of Texas v. Aguilera, Angel

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 22, 2005

Such mistakes ought not be cast in stone. (7) "The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner." (8) Similarly, the rule fails to allow … Of course, if the evidence affirmatively and clearly shows that the defendant had begun serving his sentence before adjournment of court on the day of sentencing, (13) then the trial court cannot modify or alter his original

Villa v. State

514 S.W.3d 227 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 22, 2017

what that opinion was.”18 But “[e]ven if the jury inferred an opinion from the detective’s other testimony,” the court of appeals discounted that opinion because it relied upon the arrest of appellant in this case to qualify … But that does not erase Bejaran’s earlier testimony, which, by itself, is sufficient to establish appellant’s gang membership.

Russeau, Gregory

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 29, 2005

Thus, if the evidence in this case established burglary, we need not examine whether there was sufficient evidence to show robbery. … A clearly wrong and unjust verdict occurs when the jury's finding "shocks the conscience" or "clearly demonstrates bias." Santellan v. State , 939 S.W.2d 155, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Gallagher v. State

690 S.W.2d 587 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 29, 1985

County courts were also to be established, each with jurisdiction over criminal misdemeanors. Journal of the Constitutional Convention of 1875 (The “News” Office, Galveston, Texas), p. 408. … The position of a reserve deputy constable clearly falls under the definition of “public servant” as set forth in V.T.C.A., Penal Code, § 1.07(a)(30). .