Case law

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

Welch v. State

57 Tex. Crim. 111 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 27, 1909

It seems to us clearly that this witness had sufficiently qualified as an expert, and that the testimony was admissible. … It seems to us that the testimony was so clearly admissible as to admit of no sort of doubt.

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

Ellason v. State

815 S.W.2d 656 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 19, 1991

State, 779 S.W.2d 417 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), the facts established that the defendant tied his victim to a bedpost with pantyhose and sexually assaulted her. … Patterson opined that she would be able to carry out her oath yet that when she had a muscle spasm she could not think clearly.

Dean, Alesha

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 23, 2016

Evans qualified Young’s language that suggested a defendant’s guilty plea would be rendered involuntary simply because counsel misadvised him on parole eligibility.17 12 Id. 13 Id … parole eligibility was elevated to the status of an element of the plea bargain.” 28 Yet the Court does what we said we would no longer do; it implies a parole eligibility element even though the record does not establish

Russell v. State

665 S.W.2d 771 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 6, 1983

The objection to their testimony was that they were not qualified to state their conclusion or opinion. The officers had all known appellant for several years, some having handled him as a juvenile. … When the facts of the instant offense are considered with the additional evidence of the extraneous robbery, the beating in jail and appellant’s reputation, we conclude the evidence is clearly sufficient to support the jury

Ex Parte Granger

850 S.W.2d 513 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Feb 10, 1993

Our holding in Stephens was grounded on well established jeopardy principles. … That at the conclusion of the guilt/innocence phase of trial appellant's jury convicted him irrationally of the greater inclusive offense hardly seems to qualify as error at the punishment phase alone.

Hultin v. State

171 Tex. Crim. 425 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 2, 1961

Otherwise, he would be immune from prosecution until he had reached the age of twenty-one (21) years. This, in our opinion, was not the intention of the Legislature at the time they enacted the juvenile statute.” … It was clearly not the intent of the legislature to prohibit proof by a competent witness merely because he testified to the same facts at a juvenile hearing.

Bates v. State

587 S.W.2d 121 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 10, 1979

With respect to appellant’s contention regarding Section 36.08, we conclude that appellant has no standing to challenge such statute since he was clearly being prosecuted pursuant to the felony provisions of Section 36.02 … (b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or

Guidry v. State

9 S.W.3d 133 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 15, 1999

Appellant argues that to qualify as a statement against interest under Rule 803(24), the statement must be against the declarant’s interest. … A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. TEX. R. CRIM. EVID. 803(24). .

Grey, Steven Carl

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 18, 2009

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

Cook, Kerry Max

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 19, 2024

- After qualifying Sgt. … The court finds that Cook has not clearly, convincingly, and unquestionably established his innocence of this crime. Both sides agree that the record supports the trial court’s finding of fact.

Massey v. State

933 S.W.2d 141 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 23, 1996

We have reviewed the record and conclude the trial court’s findings are supported thereby and are not clearly erroneous. Appellant’s eleventh point of error is overruled. … The State’s experts were qualified in the field, and de *153 scribed and compared the various DNA testing techniques in detail and with clarity.

Grey, Steven Carl

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: 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 the offense

Leza v. State

351 S.W.3d 344 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 12, 2011

Nor does he now offer any justification for treating these arguments as immune from ordinary principles of procedural default, 57 in contemplation of the framework for error preservation elaborated in Marin v. … In criminal cases, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.”). 65 . 547 U.S. 319, 324 ,

Hathorn v. State

848 S.W.2d 101 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 28, 1992

Although the deceased was not available to testify at trial, proof of lack of consent may be established through circumstantial evidence. See Taylor v. … That any jurors who may not be qualified by reason of their views on the death penalty be excused in the event of a conviction for capital murder, and new “death qualified” jurors be selected to take their places, or if both

Harris v. State

64 Tex. Crim. 594 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 17, 1912

Allowing the bill, the judge qualified it by stating this as a part of the bill: “The witness had been- asked several questions which she had ansivered before the one objected to, and in the opinion of the court, if the State … This charge was clearly a comment on the testimony and the court can no more do this against the State than it can against the appellant.

Banda v. State

890 S.W.2d 42 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 14, 1994

Sufficiency of the Evidence In his twenty-fifth point of error, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt. … First, the lesser-included offense must be included within the proof necessary to establish the offense charged. Id. at 673.

Gamez v. State

737 S.W.2d 315 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 23, 1987

Mc Cotter, supra, if Judge Vollers was not qualified to sit in that cause, then I do not understand how this Court can hold that Judge Barrera was qualified to sit in this cause, and what is stated in footnote 8 of the majority … The corroboration testimony need not directly link the accused to the crime or be sufficient in itself to establish guilt. Lyman v. State, 540 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Cherb v.

Wood v. State

573 S.W.2d 207 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jul 19, 1978

The State qualified Duncan as an expert with respect to client lists generally used in prostitution enterprises. … The facts adduced at trial established that Sgt.