Case law

Woodward v. State

42 Tex. Crim. 188 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 29, 1900

Therefore we conclude that the accident or circumstance, whichever it may be termed, of the serious sickness or dying condition of a child whose father is. serving on the jury, is clearly within the statutory grounds, and … Certainly, to prove a declaration of deceased, not in the presence of defendant and without any knowledge of defendant as to what his intentions were or would be, could not be used as a predicate to establish motive, animus

Ramos v. State

934 S.W.2d 358 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 26, 1996

The question is whether the bodies of dead persons qualify as “persons” under this subsection. When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply the plain meaning of its words. Boykin v. … Appellant does not argue that the prospective jurors are qualified under Witt; instead, he attacks the constitutionality of the Witt standard itself.

Smith v. State

90 Tex. Crim. 24 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 20, 1921

This testimony was clearly admissible. Proctor v. State, 54 Texas Crim. Rep., 259 ; Long v. State, 59 Texas Crim. Rep., 103 , 127 S. W. Rep., 554 . … We think they were clearly within the limits of legitimate deductions in every thing stated by them as disclosed in the bill.

Williams, Janet Lorraine

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2008

WILLIAMS—2 structural constitutional error that is categorically immune to a harm analysis.2 We granted review to determine whether the court’s refusal to apply a harm analysis was incorrect. … and unequivocably asserted.” 16 Once asserted, under Faretta, the trial judge must inform the defendant about “the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what

Carroll v. State

42 S.W.3d 129 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 7, 2001

As the Court stated in Estelle : "Any effort by the State to compel [the defendant] to testify against his will at the sentencing hearing clearly would contravene the Fifth Amendment." … Unlike the defendant taking the stand, who "cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him ... an immunity from cross-examination on the matters he has himself put in dispute," id., at 155-156, 78 S.Ct. 622 ,

Barajas v. State

93 S.W.3d 36 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 26, 2002

Questioning about these grounds is essential to attaining a qualified jury. … Since the doctrine was established, courts have adopted juror questionnaires that provide the parties with personal information about the members of the venire.

Love v. State

861 S.W.2d 899 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 9, 1993

THE COURT: He is only qualified to express an opinion on intoxication. Don’t go into opinion things with him because he is not qualified on those. He is only qualified on one thing. … In the case at bar, appellant attempted to call Blalock as his witness during the State’s case-in-chief; clearly this action fell outside the dictates of Art. 36.01.

Young v. State

891 S.W.2d 945 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 26, 1994

Leotia Howard's testimony was the only evidence which established that appellant did not have an owner's consent to enter, and therefore was important and not cumulative. … "A presentation under Rule 803(7) requires, first, a foundation sufficient to qualify the record under Rule 803(6).

Tolbert v. State

306 S.W.3d 776 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 17, 2010

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

Maddox v. State

613 S.W.2d 275 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 4, 1981

However, the definition of the lawyer’s ethical duty in such a situation is qualified by the requirements of due , process and the right to counsel in criminal cases. … But “[i]n any event, the record must clearly show that the accused voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel in order to represent himself.

Kipp v. State

876 S.W.2d 330 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 23, 1994

The discretion of the trial court to make such a determination does not render it immune from arriving at its determination in accordance with the rules of evidence and procedure. … Barton, Texas Rules of Evidence Manual VIII-54 (3rd ed. 1991) (proponent of evidence must establish that statement was made while declarant still affected by startling event).

Sanchez v. State

23 S.W.3d 30 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 21, 2000

The Legislature clearly did not intend to change former law by authorizing or requiring a jury to find against a defendant on the sudden passion issue if the jury was nonunanimous or split on the issue. … But there was only one provision in the 1973 Penal Code that purported to establish a punishment issue for noncapital cases, and that issue was in fact a defensive issue.

Ocon v. State

284 S.W.3d 880 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 3, 2009

Our older cases most clearly stated that the State bears the burden of calling witnesses to rebut the presumption of harm. Cole v. … Thus, the defendant in those cases met his burden of establishing a statutory violation when he established that any communication took place outside the court's presence.

Ex Parte Roper

61 Tex. Crim. 68 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 7, 1910

Not only is this view of our duty, as I think, conclusive of qualified judges, but there is yet another view from the force and correctness of which, as it seems to me, there can be no escape. … Courts will not declare an act of the Legislature invalid as being in conflict with the constitution, unless it appear to them to be clearly so.

Furr v. State

194 S.W. 395 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 28, 1917

The testimony as a whole clearly authorized the jury to believe and find, as it did, that the evidence was sufficient to show seduction, and'was not a mere arrangement of bargain and sale. … The court qualified the bill by stating that the court instructed the jury at once not to consider the remarks excepted to, and withdrew said remarks from their consideration.

Robbins, Neal Hampton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 26, 2014

This is clearly not what the Legislature intended. … Moore’s new opinion qualifies as “scientific knowledge . . . on which the relevant scientific evidence is based has changed.”

Sheffield v. State

165 Tex. Crim. 354 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Apr 24, 1957

Unless and until it was established here that the certificate was a forgery, no offense had been committed. … which was offered by appellant, to show that Doris Sayles was acting as a Notary Public in and for McCulloch County, Texas, and there is no evidence which shows or tends to show that she was not a regularly appointed and qualified

Reynolds v. State

4 S.W.3d 13 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Sep 15, 1999

Ashe did not announce some *20 free-standing all encompassing collateral estoppel constitutional principle apart from double jeopardy principles that is immune from the legislative process. … The former clearly is prohibited by federal constitutional double jeopardy principles no matter who the “parties” are to the proceedings.

Good v. State

98 Tex. Crim. 556 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Oct 8, 1924

To establish the motive of one accused of homicide to take the life of another that the deceased was an actor in the maintaining of some judicial proceeding against the accused, pending or soon to begin, has often been asserted … Moreover, from the bill as qualified and the evidence in the case, we understand that the cattle involved in the indictment belonged to Mrs.

Qualley v. State

206 S.W.3d 624 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 24, 2006

During the course of proceedings, three different rationales for this conclusion were advanced: (1) the prior conviction qualified as a “previous admissible conviction” mandating a severance under the statute, (2) the prior … Moore clearly knew about his own motives before trial and, therefore, was obligated to raise before trial any claim based upon those motives.