APPELLANT’S ISSUE Did the court of appeals improperly substitute its own judgment for a jury’s that was never given the opportunity with proper instruction? STATE’S ISSUE The court of appeals’s harm analysis did not consider the unlikelihood that the jury would have reached the necessity issue gi...
1. “Does the Confrontation Clause require a trial court to detail the legal and factual underpinnings for its finding that a necessity under Haggard v. State, 612 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020), warrants dispensing with in-person confrontation for a witness?” 2. “If so, did the defendant fo...
“The Court of Appeals Erred in Holding That Appellant Raised a Cognizable Claim in a Pre-Trial Habeas Corpus Proceeding.” GRANTED ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION (1-17-24) "Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding that Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case ...
ON COURT’S OWN MOTION “Did the court of appeals err in holding that the charge did not have to include a special jury unanimity instruction requiring that the jury be unanimous as to whether appellant was guilty of aggravated robbery by threat or aggravated robbery by bodily injury?”
1. “The court of appeals disregarded the plain language of Election Code § 255.004(b) (the ‘True Source of Communication’ statute) and misconstrued it to unlawfully require identification of the source of a campaign communication. On its face, the statute does not require identification of the so...
“The Court of Appeals Erred to Find That the State Was Required to Provide Appellant with Specific Notice as to Which Manner and Means the State Would Seek to Prove.”
(1) “By holding that before a pretrial facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute is cognizable, a favorable resolution of the challenge must result in immediate release on all charges in the indictment, the Eighth Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state law tha...
1. “A divided appellate court ignored the law governing the review of suppression rulings by usurping the deference given to the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses and evidence.” 2. “A divided appellate court disagreed on a material question of law necessary to the court’s decision ...
denotes a petition filled by SPA