Case law

Harris, Roderick

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 25, 2016

App. 2013) (explaining that an “issue of first impression can sometimes qualify” for extraordinary relief “when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established

Medina, Hector Rolando

475 S.W.3d 291 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 4, 2015

Is the State, in a post-conviction evidentiary hearing on a writ of habeas corpus, clearly prohibited from calling the writ applicant to testify— under a grant of both use and derivative-use immunity — about whether he was … We have recently recognized that “an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established.”

In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKS

391 S.W.3d 117 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 16, 2013

for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established. *123 B. … establishes that proposition.

In re Masterson

503 S.W.3d 412 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 15, 2016

(explaining that “ ‘an issue of first impression can sometimes qualify for mandamus relief when the factual scenario has never been, precisely addressed but the principle of law has been clearly established’ ”) (quoting In … Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex.Crim.App.2013)), ■ To establish the second of the two requirements for obtaining a writ of prohibition, a relator must demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy at law.

Ratliff, Kevin

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 16, 2022

that the seriousness of the crime is equally important in cases of hot pursuit.”18 Significantly, Stanton was about “qualified immunity.”19 The issue was whether the law was clearly established that Stanton’s … pursuit of a fleeing suspect did not justify his warrantless entry into a home when the suspected crime was only a misdemeanor.20 The Supreme Court held that the law was not clearly established in that regard.21 To the

in Re Tyrone Allen

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 13, 2015

In so doing, it forced upon the states the burden to address the challenges posed by the inevitable onslaught of claimants seeking to establish their categorical immunity from capital punishment. … Clearly the Supreme Court was referring to the identical phenomenon in Hall as was referred to in Atkins.

Ford v. State

73 S.W.3d 923 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 1, 2002

But this logic would re-establish automatic reversible error, contrary to the language and purpose of Rule 44.2 and contrary to our opinion in Cain. 10 Under our harmless error rule the violation of a mandatory statute does … And we presume that jurors are qualified absent some indication in the record to the contrary.

McClure v. State

100 Tex. Crim. 545 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Mar 25, 1925

In qualifying the bill the learned trial judge adverts to the fact that the appellant had come to the Western country in November, 1918, and remained until January, 1922,- and had not'since he came West been in the State … So with the inadmissible testimony on the subject of arson and immunity.

Zani v. State

701 S.W.2d 249 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 11, 1985

State, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 180 , 22 S.W. 682 (App.1893), this Court clearly embraced this notion of the necessity for immunity agreements. … Immunity is clearly not attractive to our notions of justice and morality. However, because of the difficulty in uncovering criminal activity, it is a pragmatic and necessary tool in criminal prosecution and prevention.

In re Allen

462 S.W.3d 47 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 13, 2015

In so doing, it forced upon the states the burden to address the challenges posed by the inevitable onslaught of claimants seeking to establish their categorical immunity from capital punishment. … Clearly the Supreme Court was referring to the identical phenomenon in Hall as was referred to in Atkins .

Carpenter v. State

149 Tex. Crim. 144 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 23, 1946

Therefore, his plea of immunity cannot avail him. See Johnson v. State, 141 S. W. 493 ; also 20 Tex. Jur. p. 613, sec. 11. … The bill is further qualified as follows: “No objection was made by counsel for defendant to the testimony quoted in said Bill of Exception.” *150 Appellant having accepted the bill as qualified, he is bound thereby.

Burt v. State

38 Tex. Crim. 397 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 9, 1897

Rep., 972, say: "In the examination of expert witnesses, counsel may embrace in hypothetical questions such facts as he may deem established by the evidence, and, if opposing counsel does not think all the facts established … In regard to this bill we make the same observations as with reference to Gibson's testimony above, holding that he very clearly qualified himself to give an opinion on the sanity of the accused.

Sanchez v. State

995 S.W.2d 677 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 30, 1999

Nevertheless, we find that employment in the public sector clearly falls within the meaning of “privilege.” … As the statutory construction portion of this opinion shows, public sector employment clearly falls within the term “privilege,” and hence, the statute clearly proscribes a public servant’s attempt to condition a subordinate

Stanford v. State

42 Tex. Crim. 343 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 12, 1900

The court qualifies this bill by stating: “When the witness refused to testify on the ground that it would incriminate her, she was .asked if she would answer the ‘questions if she was granted immunity from prosecution, and … The court qualifies this bill by stating that there was no proof of a former husband.

Hernandez v. State

160 Tex. Crim. 72 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 18, 1952

Ed. 1074 , establishment of discrimination rested upon facts showing actual or express discrimination against members of the Negro race. … Mexicans are white people, and are entitled at the hands of the state to all the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Murff v. State

76 Tex. Crim. 5 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Nov 25, 1914

It was clearly established that the order for the extension of time was made at the time the motion for new trial was overruled; that it was not entered by the clerk in the minutes through his mistake and oversight, and the … The appellant accepted that bill as thus qualified and is bound thereby. As explained and qualified by the court this shows no reversible error.

Jones v. State

85 Tex. Crim. 538 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 25, 1919

In Puryear’s case the witness did not testify, though he was rendered to the appellant by the State, appellant declining to use him because of the failure of the State to grant him immunity. … As qualified, the bill, discloses no error, though generally an inspection of such documents when demanded, should be afforded. Green v. State, 53 Texas Crim. 490, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 706.

Polk v. State

91 Tex. Crim. 354 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jan 25, 1922

When this evidence was introduced, nothing had been given in evidence by defendant to impeach the credit of the witness, and it was for that reason clearly incompetent." … He did not absolutely deny making the *Page 360 statement, but admitted making them in some qualified way.

STEELE, ANDREW v. the State of Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Dec 18, 2024

This is true even if appellant’s connection to the theft of these items was not specifically established, as long as she had the opportunity to object and challenge such a connection. … Therefore, the State claims, the condition is not the sort of intolerable, antithetical-to-justice condition that is immune from waiver. We agree.

Pistole v. State

68 Tex. Crim. 127 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · Jun 19, 1912

“That he is well versed and schooled in said profession of veterinary medicine, surgery, and dentistry, and has shown himself thoroughly qualified to practice said science in all its branches in a skillful and successful … It is our opinion that the Act is clearly constitutional.