Legal Opinion

George Loran Dana v. State

Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)

Decided December 12, 2012No. 09-11-00401-CRPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DAVID GAULTNEY, Justice.

Appellant George Loran Dana pleaded “not guilty by reason of insanity” to the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found him guilty. Dana claims that he was legally incompetent to stand trial, and that evidence of his drug use was improperly admitted. He claims that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s deadly weapon finding. And he argues that the statutory prohibition against informing jurors of the consequences of finding him insane violated his right to a fair trial.

We conclude that the record supports the trial…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Moore v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
  3. Williams v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2009
  4. Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2010
  5. Bigby v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1994

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Brown, HaroldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 2015
  2. Dennis Roy Redding v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2015
  3. Gerald William Ren Quick v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)2024
  4. Harold Brown v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2015
  5. Matthew Wayne Pillow v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API