Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Gollihar v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 16, 2001No. 669-99Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KEASLER, J.,

delivered this concurring and dissenting opinion, in which HERVEY, J„ joined.

I respect and appreciate the majority’s attempt to clarify an unclear area of the law. But I would resolve the issues differently.

I

The majority concludes that our variance law conflicts with our surplusage law and, therefore, overrules all surplusage law. Rather than overruling surplusage law, I would seize this opportunity to clarify variance law.

The problem with our variance caselaw is our failure to distinguish between two different issues — lack of notice and insufficient evidence. The word “variance”…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Malik v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
  3. Rojas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1998
  4. Burrell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1975
  5. Ortega v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1984

8 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