Legal Opinion

State v. McKnight

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided January 31, 2007No. PD-1854-06PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

A jury found Appellee guilty of disorderly conduct. The trial court then granted Appellee’s motion for new trial, and the State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed based on its conclusion that the harm standard set forth in Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), does not apply to jury-charge errors presented in a motion for new trial. State v. McKnight, — S.W.3d-, 2006 WL 2955324 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, No. 04-05-00295-CR, delivered October 18, 2006).

The State has filed a petition for discretionary review contending that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis.…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Almanza v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  2. Igo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
  3. State v. McKnight, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2006

4Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ambrose, CynthiaCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2016
  2. State v. Gilbert Sanchez, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2012
  3. State v. Cynthia Ambrose, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2015
  4. State v. Susan Marie SciaccaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2016
  5. Ambrose, CynthiaCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2015

5 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