Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arnold v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 24, 1990No. 482-89, 483-89, 507-89, 627-89, 530-89 and 373-89Published

1DissentTeague, Judge

I was under the impression that when this Court granted the petitions for discretionary review in the above cases, as well as others, it was the intent of this Court that it would give guidance through bright line rules to the courts of appeals of this State as to when “Rose” error would or would not call for reversible error, so that a certain amount of consistency would exist in this area of the law in all 14 courts of appeals. Sad to say, there is no such guidance in what has been written to date, and both the State and defendants are now going to be at the mercy of how the particular…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Almanza v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  2. Satterwhite v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Rose v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988
  4. Gabriel v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1988
  5. Rische v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API