Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bignall v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 16, 1994No. 473-93Published

1DissentMeCORMICK, Presiding Judge

Pluck! Pluck! Pluck! Pluck! Last year, in Ramos v. State, 865 S.W.2d 463, 464-65 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), we reaffirmed the rule set out in Godsey v. State, 719 S.W.2d 578, 584 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), that evidence should not be plucked out of the record and examined in a vacuum in a lesser included offense analysis. In Ramos, we held the State’s evidence and a single statement in the defendant’s testimony, viewed in the context of the entire record and the defendant’s factual theory at trial that he committed no offense, were insufficient to raise a lesser included offense. Id., 865 S.W.2d at 465. I…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rousseau v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
  2. Godsey v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
  3. Ramos v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1993
  4. Bignall v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API