Sharp v. State
Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BRIAN QUINN, Chief Justice.
Robert Edward Sharp (appellant) appeals his conviction for indecency with a child. Via various issues, he contends that the trial court erred by 1) allowing the State’s investigator to remain in the courtroom once the rule was invoked, 2) permitting a witness to impart hearsay when the State failed to comply with article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 3) admitting appellant’s pen packet without proper authentication, and 4) allowing the State to reopen during punishment after it had rested. We affirm.
Issue One — Rule 614
In his first issue,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cardenas v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2000
- Broxton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1995
- Prystash v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999
- Hernandez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
- Beheler v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Gonzalez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2011
- Prieto v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2011
- Allen Pena A/K/A Alan Pena v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2013
- Andrew Castillo v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2024
- Benjamin Curcuru v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2010
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.