Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ex Parte Matthews

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 23, 1996No. 176-95Published

1ConcurrenceBaird, Judge

At issue in the instant case is the statutory interpretation of Tex.Code Crim. Proe. Ann. art. 12.05(a), which provides:

The time during which the accused is absent from the state shall not be computed in the period of limitation.1

I

In Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Cr.App.1991), we stated the “lawmaking” function is assigned to the Legislature and the “law interpreting” function is assigned to the judiciary. Tex. Const, art. II, § 1. In discharging this assignment, the judiciary “seek[s] to effectuate the ‘collective’ intent or purpose of the legislators who enacted the legislation.”…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Boykin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
  2. Michigan v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. State v. DaughertyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
  4. Dillehey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
  5. Holloway v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989

10 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