1. “May a reviewing court rely exclusively on the ‘custodial interrogation environment’ rather than assess whether a defendant was subjected to interrogation regarding the invocation of the right to interrogation counsel and, if so, may a defendant prospectively invoke their right to interrogatio...
1. “When cumulation of sentences is ordered, should objection be required to complain on appeal about a deficiency of proof supporting it or lack of specificity in the written order?” 2. “Was the evidence in this case adequate to connect appellant to a prior sentence?” 3. “When cumulation of sent...
1. “The Fourteenth Court misapplied the standard of review for legal sufficiency when it held that a rational jury could not infer that the appellant wished to murder his own mother based upon her past testimony in a protective order case.” 2. “The Fourteenth Court further misapplied th...
1. “Is holding a jury trial in the county’s designated auxiliary courtroom located in the same public building as the county jail and Sheriff’s Department inherently prejudicial to the presumption of innocence?” 2. “Was the use of the auxiliary courtroom justified when the trial judge’s findings ...
1. “Did the 10th COA error (sic) in holding the evidence legally sufficient because ‘[Petitioner] jumped out the vehicle and attempted to connect the brake lines and lights, constituting an activity in which he possessed stolen cargo?’” 2. “Did the 10th COA misconstrue section 31.18(b)(1) of the ...
1. "Evidence of mental disease or defect that at best bolsters a matter collateral to a defendant’s mental state defense is inadmissible under Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)." 2. "If such evidence is admissible, the court of appeals erred by assessing harm for constitution...
APPELLANT’S ISSUE Did the court of appeals improperly substitute its own judgment for a jury’s that was never given the opportunity with proper instruction? STATE’S ISSUE The court of appeals’s harm analysis did not consider the unlikelihood that the jury would have reached the necessity issue gi...
1. “Does the Confrontation Clause require a trial court to detail the legal and factual underpinnings for its finding that a necessity under Haggard v. State, 612 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020), warrants dispensing with in-person confrontation for a witness?” 2. “If so, did the defendant fo...
denotes a petition filled by SPA