Legal Opinion
Arnold v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided January 24, 1990No. 482-89, 483-89, 507-89, 627-89, 530-89 and 373-89PublishedCited by 117 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
CLINTON, Judge.
These causes present various aspects of application of Tex.R.App.Pro.Rule 81(b)(2) to “statutory” error at the punishment stage in charging a jury on parole law pursuant to Article 37.07, § 4, V.A.C.C.P. Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1987-1988). “Rose error” is giving an instruction in terms of the constitutionally infirm statute. Id., at 535, 537 and 553-554.
Finding that courts of appeals are conducting disparate harm analyses of Rose error, we granted review in these causes and consolidated them for submission on briefs…
2Cases cited72 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Almanza v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
- Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Francis v. FranklinSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Fahy v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by117 opinions
- McFarland v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
- Colburn v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1998
- Barnes v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1994
- Matchett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
- Faulkner v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1997
112 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.