Case law

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.

Romero v. State

493 S.W.2d 206 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 18, 1973

It must further appear that the examiner is qualified and the test administered in accordance with established polygraph techniques. … If, for security reasons, handcuffs or shackles are necessary, the trial judge should have the record clearly reflect the reasons therefor. See Ex parte Slaton, 484 S.W.2d 102 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

State v. Weaver

982 S.W.2d 892 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 18, 1998

The language of § 31.09 clearly contains no provision for multi-county venue; thus there is no need to resort to legislative history for supposition as to extending venue beyond what our statutes provide. … The State claims that the Legislature “did not intend for an offender to be immune from prosecution for aggregate theft because he either had the luck or the foresight to commit his various thefts in different counties.”

Olson v. State

484 S.W.2d 756 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 26, 1969

Under the common law process as it exists today, even constitutional principles do not emerge as full-blown eternal truths, thus remaining immutable and immune from the process of change. … Frequently courts announce a broad generalization which is, over a period of time, qualified and narrowed until its authoritativeness has been vitiated.

Medina, Hector Rolando

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 12, 2011

We do not believe that the trial judge's decision on these five venire members was clearly erroneous. … After examining the record, we cannot find that the trial judge's ruling on this challenge was clearly erroneous.

Ex parte Chaney

563 S.W.3d 239 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 19, 2018

No one has suggested that bitemark comparisons have no basis in science or that the authors of the affidavits are not qualified experts in that area. See TEX. R. EVID. 702. … But I would still feel less uncomfortable with calling applicants "actually innocent" in a forever-lasting, published opinion if they are required to meet at least some clearly established burden with regard to the actual

Perry, Ex Parte James Richard "Rick"

483 S.W.3d 884 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 24, 2016

The Supreme Court has further extended this rationale to claims of qualified immunity, to the extent such a claim turns on an issue of law. Mitchell v. … Cisneros, 169 F.3d 763 , (D.C.Cir.1999) (prospective nominee for cabinet position could not rely on. alleged infringement of President’s power to establish jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal — "The immunity, if any,

Johnson v. State

614 S.W.2d 148 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 15, 1981

Though commonplace it is for “reputation testimony” to be adduced, the ritualistic manner in which a witness so often has been qualified by simply saying that he knows that reputation inquired about — without a firmer predicate … Displaying it after calling her on rebuttal, counsel established that appellant’s pistol was “a different gun” from the one used in the robbery.

Writt v. State

541 S.W.2d 424 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 7, 1976

Clearly there was no formal hearing on the verbal motion to suppress. … While the showing of two of the suspects alone to the alleged victim of a robbery is not to be condoned, the record before us does not establish which two men were in the other room.

Parker v. State

91 Tex. Crim. 68 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 7, 1921

established the necessity for a change of venue. … It was further qualified with the information that the appellant was advised of his privilege to intro *76 duce the omitted part.

Vander Boegh v. Bank of Oklahoma, N.A.

394 S.W.3d 917 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 8, 2013

CR 76.25(8) clearly makes certification of *920 service a prerequisite to filing. … beneficiaries, determine any question arising in the administration or distribution of any trust including questions of construction of trust instruments, to instruct trustees, and determine the existence or nonexistence of any immunity

Abbott v. State

94 Tex. Crim. 31 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 7, 1923

The bills of exception complaining of the refusal of the court to order attachments for absent veniremen are qualified by the trial court and the qualification accepted by appellant, it being stated that attachments were … Such accomplice testimony might be believed to be true, and it might connect the accused with the offense *36 charged, and still not establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Williams v. State

604 S.W.2d 146 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 11, 1980

In his second ground of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to qualify the expert witness, Dr. Jachimczyk, “in a field for which he was not called to testify.” … There, the State established that the five witnesses were all familiar with appellant’s reputation, that they all had discussed appellant’s reputation with many people, including non-law enforcement officials, and that their

Clinton, Katherine

354 S.W.3d 795 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 14, 2011

The court of appeals held that the evidence is sufficient to establish attempted “use” or actual “presentment.” Clinton, 327 S.W.3d at 368 . … In Patterson , this Court determined that any “exhibiting” of a deadly weapon would likely also qualify as a “use.” Id.

Tillerd Ardean Smith, Medallion Transport & Logistics, LLC, Tomy Rushing D/B/A Rushing Transport Services, Inc. v. Brandi Williams

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 10, 2015

Those are elements necessary to establish vicarious liability, but not to establish ExxonMobil’s direct liability under a negligent- supervision theory. … See Broders, 924 S.W.2d at 153 (concluding that the trial court properly excluded expert testimony where the proponent failed to establish that the physician was qualified to opine “on cause in fact”); see also Roberts, 111

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. 28 Id. at 563. 29 … 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

Ex Parte Hood

211 S.W.3d 767 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 10, 2007

claim only if this Court has misapplied clearly established federal law. … clearly established law once he arrives in federal court.

Jackson v. State

745 S.W.2d 4 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 3, 1988

Appellant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish his guilt for the offense of capital murder. … After the jury panel had been qualified, but before the voir dire had commenced, appellant presented his motion to the trial court to quash the jury panel.

Wilkerson v. State

657 S.W.2d 784 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 18, 1983

Thus, under the totality of the circumstances established, 24 the State has fallen short of its burden of proof, and we so hold. … He told appellant he was not the focus of the investigation and not to “be in fear of prosecution” for any past drug dealings or the like, though “there is no immunity from the offense of perjury.” .Quizzed on crossexamination