Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Almanza v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided February 27, 1985No. 242-83Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOnion, Presiding Judge

Article 36.19, V.A.C.C.P., provides:

“Whenever it appears by the record in any criminal action that any requirement of Articles 36.14, 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18 has been disregarded, the judgment shall not be reversed unless the error appearing from the record was calculated to injure the rights of defendant, or unless it appears from the record that the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial. All objections to the charge and to the refusal of special charges shall be made at the time of the trial.”

Here is a statute dealing with the violation of certain enumerated statutes…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Cumbie v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1979
  2. Cobarrubio v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1983
  3. Doyle v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1982
  4. Bishop v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1875
  5. Braudrick v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API