1. “The Fourteenth Court misapplied the standard of review for legal sufficiency when it held that a rational jury could not infer that the appellant wished to murder his own mother based upon her past testimony in a protective order case.” 2. “The Fourteenth Court further misapplied th...
1. “Is holding a jury trial in the county’s designated auxiliary courtroom located in the same public building as the county jail and Sheriff’s Department inherently prejudicial to the presumption of innocence?” 2. “Was the use of the auxiliary courtroom justified when the trial judge’s findings ...
1. "Evidence of mental disease or defect that at best bolsters a matter collateral to a defendant’s mental state defense is inadmissible under Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)." 2. "If such evidence is admissible, the court of appeals erred by assessing harm for constitution...
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...
“When four judges have considered whether to properly grant a motion for new trial and two of them have decided that such a motion was properly granted, then that decision cannot be outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. The two-justice majority of the Court of Appeals never explicitly foun...
“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?”
denotes a petition filled by SPA