Legal Opinion · Dissent

Austin v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 6, 1990No. 3-89-176-CRPublished

1DissentPowers, Justice

I believe the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence the officer’s opinion testimony. The testimony supplies, in the majority’s view, a link between Austin’s agreement for sexual intercourse and the $130 fee paid by the officer. Without the officer’s opinion that the words “Swedish Deep Muscle Rub” implied “prostitution,” no such link was established under the majority’s reasoning. Hence the error was harmful. Whether or not the officer’s opinion was properly in evidence, however, I believe the evidence insufficient to establish two essential elements of the offense: that Austin…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Jackson v. State of TexasCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
  3. Wood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
  4. Mays v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
  5. Trippell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1976

10 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