Case law

Martin v. State

132 Tex. Crim. 511 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 26, 1937

The bill is qualified by the trial court with the statement that the State was entitled to plead surprise under the facts. … This we regard as clearly injurious and erroneous. For the error mentioned the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded.

Franklin v. State

606 S.W.2d 818 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 24, 1979

The evidence in the instant case does not show that the knife used is a deadly weapon per se, but the evidence clearly establishes that it was used in a manner calculated to produce death. … Although appellant apparently sought to establish mistaken identity, the proffered evidence does not establish that appellant had ever been mistakenly identified as Tealer. Cf. Holt v.

State of Texas v. Guerrero, Ex Parte Marcelino

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 5, 2013

The facts of this case establish without a doubt that Defendant, Marcelino Guerrero, was never properly admonished about the consequences of his plea and clearly establishes harm to Defendant resulting in his possible deportation … infinitesimal chance that, if he did not plead guilty, he would (1) be found not guilty; (2) be able to remain undetected in the United States as an undocumented alien for the next ten years without being detained; (3) qualify

Lera v. State

138 Tex. Crim. 127 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 8, 1939

Omitting the formal parts, bill of exception No. 2, as qualified, reads as follows: “The testimony showed that the cause of the death of deceased was a bullet fired from a pistol, entering just behind the left ear in the … Clearly, the question carried the strong implication that appellant made the statement inquired about.

State of Texas v. White, Jimmie Dale

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 10, 2010

Clearly we can’t cross-examine all of the people who’ve passed away, including one of the lead suspects. 1 Presumably, White meant the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. … No single factor is necessary or sufficient to establish a violation of the right to a speedy trial. Id. at 533. See also Cantu v. State, 253 S.W.3d 273 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008); Shaw v.

State of Texas v. White, Jimmie Dale

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.

Little v. State

758 S.W.2d 551 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 23, 1988

There was evidence offered as to the condition of the deceased’s house which clearly indicated quite a struggle took place. … Dunn clearly indicated the “sweep” had nothing to do with the investigation into the alleged offense.

State v. Brabson

976 S.W.2d 182 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 30, 1998

Taken in light of Waller, supra, it is clear the individual entities of the State do not immunize the State from criminal collateral estoppel. *194 There is no doubt the Supreme Court had this in mind when they handed down … Second, has the government in a subsequent trial tried to relitigate facts necessarily established against it in the first trial? Id., at 336.

Parshall v. State

62 Tex. Crim. 177 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 22, 1911

The rules of evidence by which vagrancy may be established have always been and are very liberal to the State. … Much more so than in *194 perhaps any other offense, and it may be established by proof which would be inadmissible to establish specific acts.

Burnett v. State

541 S.W.3d 77 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 20, 2017

To prove the person was "intoxicated," the State must establish either that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, TEX. … However, "eating M & Ms" is clearly not an element of the offense of DWI. "Intoxicated" is an element of DWI, and it is a physical state of being, regardless of the specific substance which caused the impairment.

Fitch v. State

58 Tex. Crim. 366 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 2, 1910

establishes that it was always recognized that the power was in the Legislature to create new offenses and define penalties in territory that had already adopted local option. … An inspection of the Act clearly shows that the Legislature intended that it should be a violation of law to carry on the business in a territory not only that hereafter might adopt local option, but also in the territory

Fuller v. State

829 S.W.2d 191 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 25, 1992

Early on, this Court established a concise response to complaints about psychiatric testimony on “future dangerousness.” … Clearly, the parties must be allowed to develop their cases one step at a time.

Jarrott v. State

108 Tex. Crim. 427 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 5, 1927

In other words, an inspection of the authorities above referred to show clearly that this court has frequently held that one charged with theft may acquire that character of possession necessary to constitute his taking theft … The bill of exceptions complaining of this matter is qualified. No showing is made of any injury, and we perceive none shown in the record.

Smith v. State

54 Tex. Crim. 298 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 20, 1908

upon the jury, and denies to the litigant the right to select his triors from the qualified jurors of the county and further exempts from jury duty in capital cases all qualified jurors, who have served as much as four days … A., 682), the court had under review the law to provide for the re-establishment of lost record titles to real estate.

McGee v. State

155 Tex. Crim. 639 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 13, 1950

This statement by the witness, in connection with" his other testimony, very clearly draws the distinction between medical and legal insanity. … The trial court qualified the bill, as follows: “The testimony of the witness, Mrs. H. H. Stull, was to the effect that as best she remembered the Defendant finished school that year.

Lizcano, Juan

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 5, 2010

As we have found no error in the selection of qualified jurors, points of error eighteen and nineteen are overruled. III. MENTAL RETARDATION A. … The appellant clearly satisfied the first prong of the mental retardation definition by a preponderance of the evidence. 2.

Lizcano, Juan

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 5, 2010

The appellant clearly satisfied the first prong of the mental retardation definition by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. … , or public interest suffices to establish its commission; (3) it differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less culpable mental state suffices to establish its commission; or

Davis, Irving Alvin

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 29, 2010

The proponent must establish that the expert has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the specific issue before the court that would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular subject … In the instant case, we need not address whether the appellant established a prima facie case.

Davis, Irving Alvin

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 29, 2010

The proponent must establish that the expert has knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the specific issue before the court that would qualify the expert to give an opinion on that particular subject … In the instant case, we need not address whether the appellant established a prima facie case.

Van Alstyne, Ex Parte Gregory

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 14, 2007

This means that the record would also support a reasonable jurist's conclusion that the applicant has not established mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence. … The 69 score that the defense doctor got clearly fits with what you see with regard to this defendant? A. Yes. Q.