Legal Opinion
State v. Comeaux
Court of Appeals of Texas
Decided May 23, 1990No. 3-88-091-CRPublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ABOUSSIE, Justice.
The State of Texas appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence of his blood-alcohol test results. We will affirm the trial court’s order.
On appeal, the State claims that the trial court erred by granting the motion because (1) appellee consented to the search, and (2) any search was private because it was not conducted by a state agent. The State discusses facts which the trial court allegedly “assumed,” “found,” and “felt,” but the trial court did not file any findings of fact.
The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on pretrial…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- State v. ComeauxCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1991
- Porter v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1998
- Nottingham v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1995
- Combest v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1999
- State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1991
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.