Legal Opinion
State v. Steelman
Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)
Decided April 6, 2000No. 11-99-00155-CRPublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TERRY McCALL, Justice.
The trial court granted the Steelmans’ motions to suppress evidence in their prosecutions for possession of marihuana. The State appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 44.01(a)(5) (Vernon Pamph. Supp.2000). We affirm.
Standard of Review
In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, appellate courts must give great deference to the trial court’s findings of historical facts as long as the record supports the findings. Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Tex.Cr. App.1997). Because the trial court is the exclusive finder of fact, the appellate court…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Guzman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Chambers v. MaroneySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. SteelmanCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Pineda v. City of HoustonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2000
- Barocio v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2003
- Waugh v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2001
- Radford v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)2001
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.