Legal Opinion
State v. Wofford
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Decided November 30, 2000No. 03-99-00489-CRPublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JOHN F. ONION, Jr., Justice (Retired).
Pursuant to appellees’ motions to dismiss the indictments, the trial court conducted a pretrial evidentiary hearing. The trial court dismissed each indictment. The State appeals. See Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. ait. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp.2000). The motions to dismiss were based on the claim that section 47.01(4)(B) of the Texas Penal Code 2 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness as applied to appellees’ situation — the possession, operation, and use, etc., of modified video machines known as “eight liners.” The void-for-vagueness argument in appellees’…
2Cases cited49 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Sanchez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2005
- Sheldon v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2003
- State v. One Super Cherry Master Video 8-Liner MacHine, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2001
- LaPointe v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2005
- Frieling v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2002
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.