Legal Opinion
Hill v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided November 6, 2002No. 1385-01PublishedCited by 154 opinions
1Opinion of the Court 1
OPINION
2Opinion of the Court · KeaslerKeasler, J.
in which MEYERS, PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, and HERVEY joined.
The trial judge declared a mistrial for reasons undisclosed on the record. Under *310the applicable statutes, there is no conceivable reason he could have had that would have risen to the level of “manifest necessity.” The State asks us to order an abatement to discover the judge’s reasons for his ruling. We decline to do so since it would be a futile act.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Samuel Hill was charged with capital murder. Voir dire began on a Tuesday morning and concluded the following morning. The jury was sworn in at noon…
3Cases cited21 opinions
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by154 opinions
- Jack v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2004
- Bennett v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2007
- Pierson, Leonard Jr.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2014
- Chavez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
- Ex Parte Perusquia, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2011
149 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.