State v. Rosenbaum
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON STATE’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
MILLER, Judge.
Appellee was indicted for perjury and aggravated perjury. Because the District Attorney could be called to testify, the district attorney moved that he and his staff be disqualified. The district judge *526granted the motion and disqualified the District Attorney and his staff from prosecuting the case. By court order, the district judge appointed a special prosecutor1 to “investigate” and “prosecute” the case. Subsequently, the trial court quashed the indictment of appellee for aggravated perjury. The State appealed the court…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Boykin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- State v. MorenoCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- State v. MullerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1992
- Smith v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
- State v. LackeyTexas Supreme Court · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- State v. RosenbaumCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1995
- Stephens v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1998
- Coleman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2008
- Marbut v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2002
- Busby v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1998
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.