Ex Parte Fife
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LIVINGSTON, Justice.
In this habeas corpus proceeding we are asked to decide whether the trial court erred in sua sponte granting a mistrial because of the prosecutor’s violation of “the Rule” of sequestration by questioning witnesses previously placed under the Rule while in each other’s presence. Because we have determined the trial court erred in granting the mistrial on its own, we reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s habeas relief.
Facts
Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute it. At the conclusion of voir dire, but before…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. DixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Crist v. BretzSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Bauder v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ward v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2003
- State v. Manley, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2007
- Ex Parte Nathanial Alexander, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2004
- Boyd Cooke Styron, Jr. v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)1995
- Ex Parte Darrell Lee Shields, Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.