Dickinson v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
TEAGUE, Judge.
We granted the petition for discretionary review that was filed on behalf of Russell Kent Dickinson, appellant, in order to make the determination whether the Dallas Court of Appeals correctly rejected appellant’s contention that the prosecuting attorney’s jury argument, that was made at the punishment stage of the trial, that appellant had failed to express in the courtroom “remorse,” “shame,” or “pity” towards or for his victim was an impermissible comment on the appellant’s failure to testify. See Dickinson v. State, 667…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Alejandro v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1973
- Todd v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1980
- Hawkins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
- Brumfield v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1969
- Ramos v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1967
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by126 opinions
- Borjan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1990
- Waldo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988
- Snowden, Rion PhealCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2011
- Bower v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989
- Caldwell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
121 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.