Marable v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KELLER, P.J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which PRICE, KEASLER, HERVEY, HOLCOMB and COCHRAN, JJ., joined.
We granted the following ground for review: “Whether the appellant had sufficient notice of the theory of culpability by which the State would seek conviction for delivery of a controlled substance?” As the Court of Appeals remarked, the heart of appellant’s complaint is “that he did not receive adequate notice to prepare his defense because the State did not allege in the indictment that it would prove actual delivery by the law of parties.”1 But it is well-settled that…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Malik v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Beardsley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1987
- Montoya v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Daniels v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1988
- Ferguson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by167 opinions
- In Re STATE of Texas Ex Rel. David P. WEEKSCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2013
- Vodochodsky v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Powell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2006
- Sorto v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Lopez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2003
162 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.