Anders v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
OPINION
2DissentOnion, Judge
I concur in the result reached, but feel compelled to explain my position in so doing, particularly in the event of a retrial. The majority reverses this case upon the rule stated in 24 Tex.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 745, p. 427,1 which was cited by this court in Ysasaga v. State, 444 S.W. 2d 305 (No. 42,067). This rule, as I understand, has application only where the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the State is obviously weak. In applying this rule in the case at bar the majority does so without any mention or discussion of the incriminating oral statement by the appellant which…
3Cases cited54 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Spano v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Crooker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.