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...
“When four judges have considered whether to properly grant a motion for new trial and two of them have decided that such a motion was properly granted, then that decision cannot be outside the zone of reasonable disagreement. The two-justice majority of the Court of Appeals never explicitly foun...
1. “The lower court erred when it ignored existing case law so that it could create, in a publish opinion, a new waivable-only right to physical presence under Article 33.03 that conflicts with decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the lower court, and other courts of appeals.” 2. “The low...
“Does a defendant suffer egregious harm from charge error that 1) related to an element the defendant effectively conceded and which was not a realistic possibility for acquittal, and 2) was limited to a manner and means of murder neither party argued over?”
“The Court of Appeals Erred in Holding That Appellant Raised a Cognizable Claim in a Pre-Trial Habeas Corpus Proceeding.” GRANTED ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION (1-17-24) "Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding that Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case ...
1. “When determining what felony offense was charged, must everything on the face of the charging instrument the grand jury had before it be considered?” 2. “Must a defendant object pretrial when the charging instrument creates doubt about which of two related offenses is being charged?”
denotes a petition filled by SPA