Legal Opinion

Cunningham v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided May 25, 1994No. 234-93PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

MALONEY, Judge.

A jury found appellant guilty of murder. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for life. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Cunningham v. State, 846 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals applied a proper standard in finding that statements against penal interest were not sufficiently corroborated so as to be admissible under Tex.R.CRIm.Evid. 803(24).

On the night of December 3, 1991, appellant and the victim attended a…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Davis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1994
  2. United States v. William John BagleyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  3. United States v. Robert Joseph SatterfieldCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
  4. Cunningham v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. Trevino v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
  2. Bingham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
  3. Drone v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1995
  4. Prince v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2006
  5. Trent Mason v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2013

61 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