Case law

Tolbert, Vickie Lashun

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 17, 2010

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 … Thus, the record clearly shows the prosecutor’s intense focus on the lesser-included offense.

Celis, Mauricio Rodriguez

416 S.W.3d 419 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 15, 2013

objective is to protect the public against injury from acts or services, professional in nature, deemed by both the legislature and the courts to be *427 the practice of law, done or performed by those not deemed by law to be qualified … burden of complying with conditions imposed for the protection of the public upon those who hold themselves out as lawyers for profit, rather than placing upon the public the burden of determining whether an individual is qualified

Conner v. State

67 S.W.3d 192 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 12, 2001

A clearly wrong and unjust verdict occurs where the jury’s finding is “manifestly unjust,” “shocks the conscience,” or “clearly demonstrates bias.” Santellan and Jones , both supra. … Viewed in the necessary light, the evidence at the punishment stage established that appellant committed several offenses over the preceding years including robbery, assault, and aggravated assault.

Wilson v. State

140 Tex. Crim. 424 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 11, 1940

By his plea of not guilty, the'State was required to prove the seriousness of the wounds in order to establish its case. … The State could establish this fact by any legitimate evidence at hand and appellant could not dictate that the State proceed in any particular manner to make out its case.

Townsley v. State

103 Tex. Crim. 508 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 13, 1926

It was the spontaneous outcry of a participant and clearly res gestae. If part was immaterial it does not appear harmful. … The rule is very clearly stated by Judge Davidson in House v.

Morris v. State

361 S.W.3d 649 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 7, 2011

, an examination of court decisions establishes rather clearly that we are not at the “dawn of judicial consideration” for this type of testimony. … How often "grooming” as a subject is addressed by practitioners within this field is clearly relevant to the reliability of grooming testimony as a whole.

Price v. State

496 S.W.2d 103 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 7, 1973

Richard Lee Wall, who qualified as a clinical psychologist, testified as a defense witness that he had examined appellant and found his IQ to be 68, and that an IQ of below 69 indicates that a person is mentally defective … Appellant contends a proper predicate for the admission of the laboratory specimen was not established so as to render it admissible under Article 3737e, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St., and that there was no showing of a proper

Grey v. State

298 S.W.3d 644 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 18, 2009

The answer to that question is clearly no. It is the State, not the defendant, that chooses what offense is to be charged. … Art. 37.09 provides: *649 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 differs from

Adanandus v. State

866 S.W.2d 210 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 16, 1993

We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a Batson issue unless it is clearly erroneous. Cantu, 842 S.W.2d at 689 ; Harris, 827 S.W.2d at 955 ; Whitsey v. … In his brief, appellant argues the State did not peremptorily challenge other similarly situated venirepersons, “clearly disparate treatment by the State.”

Vega, Jose Luis Jr.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 20, 2013

Appellant earned too much money for the couple to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford a policy covering pre-existing conditions. … The couple split up, so that his wife would qualify for assistance as a single mother. Appellant also said that he was in danger of losing the salesman job he had held for several years.

Guerrero, Eduardo

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 9, 2009

the possession-with-intent-to-deliver offense and evidence of appellant's intent to deliver is not required to establish the manufacturing offense. … Finally, the concurring opinion cites no authority to support its assertion that "[a]ppellate courts are not bound by prosecutorial theories when deciding whether the trial record clearly establishes a double-jeopardy violation

Lackey v. State

638 S.W.2d 439 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 15, 1982

This record clearly demonstrates that the “failures” of the State in not establishing the circumstances of the consent were not a result of vague and impalpable objections. … In fact, the record establishes that she had lied to the officers, was threatened with a polygraph examination and was precluded from refusing to testify because the State obtained an order of immunity when she was called

Green, Jonathan Marcus

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 27, 2012

The convicting court found the State’s expert to be more qualified and more credible. … Unfortunately, Article 46.05 does not clearly identify a standard by which this Court is to conduct its “review” of the convicting court’s findings under Section (l).

Chambers, John

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 26, 2019

date, and to list Appellant’s firearm as the qualifying weapon, along with that firearm’s serial number. … Looking at Article 2.12, the Legislature clearly intended for there to be overlap  Chambers - 19 reserve officers here were “employed.”

Green, Jonathan Marcus

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 27, 2012

The convicting court found the State's expert to be more qualified and more credible. … Unfortunately, Article 46.05 does not clearly identify a standard by which this Court is to conduct its "review" of the convicting court's findings under Section ( l ).

Hicks v. State

525 S.W.2d 177 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 16, 1975

But it is hard to understand the next sentence, "... the statement itself must be taken as accurate because it was not qualified or disputed by the court or prosecutor...." … Salazar is clearly not controlling or applicable. The dissent also cites Wingate v.

Nava, Andres Maldonado

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 18, 2013

He claimed that the "State has found this magic word in this transcript" and that a more qualified and educated expert said that it was not there, that no Spanish-speaking officer had said it was, and that "it never came … Or, as in Gelinas , the instruction may clearly give the wrong law and also be obviously wrong to a layperson. In the present case, the instruction does not even clearly give the jury the wrong law. 25.

Coleman v. State

145 S.W.3d 649 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 29, 2004

It does not make sense to say that because the officers handcuffed Appellant and put him in the car during the search, that the Appellant is therefore immune from a deadly-weapon finding. [1] Tyra v. … North, 900 F.2d 131 (8th Cir.1990) (unloaded shotgun, antique cap and ball pistol, and inoperable.22 rifle found in drug defendant's son's bedroom did not qualify for firearm enhancement because: (1) the antique pistol was

Jones v. State

568 S.W.2d 847 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 21, 1978

(Emphasis added) The arrest warrant clearly authorized the officer’s entry into the appellant’s apartment to arrest him. … Indeed, the fourth paragraph of the affidavit in the present case is qualified as being within the affiant’s personal knowledge.

Morrow v. State

753 S.W.2d 372 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 30, 1988

an “intentional” killing, the hypothetical concomitantly endorses an artificially low threshold of proof to establish the killing was “committed deliberately....” … We usually think of rehabilitation as the process of getting a venireman to retract, clarify or qualify an answer he has given which would otherwise subject him to a challenge for cause.