Case law

House v. State

947 S.W.2d 251 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 4, 1997

The record below clearly demonstrates the two assistant district attorneys who testified on behalf of the State at the punishment phase of appellant's trial were not involved in the prosecution of appellant. … The preamble *255 and the cannons do not depend upon which side of the bar the lawyer sits; prosecutors are not immune from the cannons of professional conduct. State ex rel. Eidson v.

Kelly v. State

68 Tex. Crim. 317 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 16, 1912

App., 291, and cases there cited, and the rule laid. down is: “But it is a rule, equally well settled and established, that though the defendant may have provoked the conflict, yet if he withdraws from it in good faith and … clearly announces his desire for peace, then if he be pursued, his right of self-defense revives.

Sanne v. State

609 S.W.2d 762 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 10, 1980

It was also established that a diamond ring belonging to the deceased was taken from the possession of Skillern. … In the present case the record clearly shows that the trial court gave defense counsel insufficient time to interview witnesses and otherwise investigate the facts.

Higbie v. State

780 S.W.2d 228 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 11, 1989

The roadblock was established between 1:30-1:45 a.m., just before the bars closed at 2:00 a.m. … There are clearly alternatives to curbing the carnage of the intoxicated driver that are in fact working.

Faust v. State

491 S.W.3d 733 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 9, 2015

That statute provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, ... subjects ... any ,.. person ... to the deprivation of any rights,' privileges, or immunities … If a plaintiff shows that he had a clearly established right that was violated, the next inquiry is whether a reasonable official could have believed his conduct was lawful. See, e.g., Freeman v.

Alcorta v. State

294 S.W.2d 112 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 30, 1956

Under the rule stated and the evidence before him, the trial court did not err in admitting the photographs, and the bill of exception as qualified shows no error. The judgment is affirmed. DAVIDSON, Judge (dissenting). … It has long been the holding of this court that pictures of the body of deceased or of wounds to the body are not admissible in evidence and only become so when they tend to establish some disputed issue in the case.

Grider v. State

468 S.W.2d 393 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 23, 1971

BOCK: Your Honor, we submit that he is qualified to serve on this jury. “THE COURT: Any further question ? “MR. BOCK: No, Your Honor. “THE COURT: Overruled. “MR. BOCK: Note your exception. … Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1578 , 26 L.Ed.2d 221 , which the United States Supreme Court clearly indicated did not meet the Witherspoon standards. See footnote #9 of the Witherspoon opinion, supra. In Pittman v.

Alvarado v. State

912 S.W.2d 199 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 15, 1995

Avila and Cameron, and that these statements clearly called for a response [because they] included appellant in the murders of the Sustaitas.” 14 See Tucker v. … The evidence in question was clearly irrelevant to the jury’s consideration of the special punishment issues submitted under Article 37.071, § 2(b). See footnote three, supra.

Franks v. State

47 Tex. Crim. 638 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 1, 1905

The juror in all other respects qualified. Whereupon defendant at this time had exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, and challenged said juror for cause. … Clearly the charge in question contains this vice; and it is not necessary to cite authorities in order to show it.

in Re State of Texas Ex Rel. Brian W. Wice, Relator

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 21, 2018

[under subsection (a) the statute lists four subsections that detail the types of work that qualify for compensation under the statute]. … For the Commissioners Court to be entitled to mandamus relief in this case, it must establish two things.22 First, the Commissioners Court 19 Sm ith v. Flack, 728 S.W .2d 784, 792 (Tex. Crim .

Simpson v. State

119 S.W.3d 262 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 1, 2003

certain federal constitutional errors labeled by the United States Supreme Court as ‘structural,’ no error, whether it relates to jurisdiction, voluntariness of a plea, or any other mandatory requirement, is categorically immune … The trial court’s finding that the State’s explanations were race-neutral is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. Point of error eight is overruled.

Gray v. State

77 Tex. Crim. 221 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 28, 1915

It is unquestionably the rule in this State, established by all the textbooks and a great many decisions of this court, that ordinarily evidence of extraneous or other crimes are inadmissible; that an accused must be tried … In our opinion the testimony of all the witnesses objected to was clearly admissible.

Ortega v. State

462 S.W.2d 296 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 10, 1970

You qualify that. Could you or could you not? A. I could not. Venireman Sanders answered as follows: Q. … Thus, the exhibit told no more than what the testimony had established. This was clearly not reversible error.

Watson, Ex Parte Frank Eugene

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 6, 2009

failure-to-yield-right-of-way offense that can be included in the intoxication-assault offense are "appellant" and "operating a motor vehicle" (which is expressly delineated as an element in the intoxication-assault statute and clearly … facts required to establish[] the commission of the offense charged'?"

Green, Jonathan Marcus

374 S.W.3d 434 · 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).

Hill v. State

429 S.W.2d 481 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 12, 1968

C.C.P., has been amended 1 to permit the trial court at its discretion to appoint disinterested qualified experts to make mental examinations of the defendant. *484 In his second ground of error appellant challenges the sufficiency … The fact that he had informed McMillion was established by cross-examination of the officer as appellant did not testify or offer any evidence at the separate hearing on the admissibility of the confession conducted in the

Delrio v. State

840 S.W.2d 443 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 4, 1992

Today, my worst fears have been realized; the majority clearly plans to use Arcila as nothing more than a tool to deny the parties’ meaningful appellate review. … We held: When conducting voir dire, the trial judge has the discretion, upon a reason sufficient to satisfy the court, to excuse an otherwise qualified venireperson from jury service. ****** We continued: In order to provide

Ex Parte Gilmore

88 Tex. Crim. 529 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 1, 1920

This is the effect of the Eighteenth Amendment given in the case, supra; that opinion clearly lays down that proposition; it also as clearly decides that the States have fully and completely subordinated themselves to the … It placed it beyond the power of the States to annul or qualify the provisions of that act. The ratification was that of the Act of Congress and will remain in vogue until repealed or changed by Congress.

Martin, Brian Douglas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 5, 2005

He asserts that, unless the extraneous offense and the charged offense both involve some fact contested at trial or a shared fact that clearly demonstrates the defendant's initial criminal intent, i.e. that he intended from … We conclude that the facts of the instant case, unlike those in Owens , show a modus operandi sufficiently distinctive to qualify as an exception to the general rule precluding the admission of extraneous-offense evidence

Stockton v. State

80 Tex. Crim. 521 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 7, 1917

Again, the testimony unquestionably -established that his assault and the liberties' he took with her person by force did cause her a sense of shame and humiliation, as shown by her testimony and the res gestae statements … The court in allowing this bill explained and qualified it thus: “The defendant swore that his attempt to fondle the person of prosecutrix met with her objections and that his advances were refused, .rejected and repelled