Armstrong v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
2Per curiam
Appellant was convicted of murder, and sentenced to confinement for life. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Armstrong v. State, 838 S.W.2d 323 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1992). In ground number two of his petition for discretionary review he alleges that the Court of Appeals failed to address his argument that the prosecutor should have revealed to the trial court his relationship to prospective juror Thornburrow, who later became the jury foreperson.
In his brief to the Court of Appeals, appellant raised as his first point of…
3Cases cited3 opinions
- Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Imo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Armstrong v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1992
4Cited by18 opinions
- Armstrong v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1995
- Turro v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1997
- Armstrong v. Randle, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)1994
- Fontenot v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1996
- Armstrong v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.