Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harrison v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided February 18, 1987No. 05-85-00992-CRPublished

1DissentHowell, Justice

I dissent. I cannot join the majority’s conclusion that a mistrial was manifestly necessary in this case for two reasons.

First, the State waived its right to obtain the relief requested because it failed to make a timely request. The record reflects that the cross-examination of the officer continued to its conclusion, that the State engaged in redirect examination of the officer, that the officer was excused as a witness, and that the State began the examination of another witness. At that time, the State moved to disqualify defense counsel and thereby prevent him from further participation…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Schaffer v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
  3. Nash v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984
  4. Nash v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API