Melendez v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMansfield, Judge
I agree with the opinion of the majority that appellant is entitled to a new trial because a key piece of evidence — Exhibit 6 (a gum wrapper) — was somehow lost, and the court of appeals found it was unable to determine without that evidence “whether the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that two gum wrappers were from the same pack of gum.” Melendez v. State, 902 S.W.2d 28, 29 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995). However, I must respectfully disagree with the opinion of the majority that exhibits at trial are part of the statement of facts and that where an exhibit has been lost or…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Boykin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Harris v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1989
- Durrough v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
- Culton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
- Gomez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.