Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Riney v. Stategreen2 sentences2017I, § 10. “[A]n indictment provides a defendant notice of the offense charged so that he may prepare, in advance of trial, an informed and effective defense.” See Riney v. State, 28 S.W.3d 561, 565 (Tex. Crim. 2016The State argues that Appellant was properly convicted as a party under section 7.02(a)(2) of the penal code because, by hiring the hit man, he “act[ed] with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, . . . solicit[ing], encourag[ing], direct[ing], aid[ing], or attempt[ing] to aid the other person to commit the offense[.]”12 The law is well settled that “indictment by grand jury protects citizens [against] arbitrary accusations by the government[,]” and “an indictment [must] provide[] a defendant [with] notice of the offense charged so that he may prepare . . . an informed and | 9 | 11 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2017App. 2000); see also Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d 683, 685 (Tex. Crim. 2014Moreover, Alaniz notes that the changes were not made until after voir dire was completed and contends that his jury selection was framed by “the charges as alleged in the indictment.” For these reasons, Alaniz asserts that he “was not afforded adequate notice to prepare an informed and effective defense.” 6 As a preliminary matter, we note that other than referring to a case for the general proposition that an indictment should inform the defendant of the charges against him, see Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d 683, 685 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 4 |
Gollihar v. Stategreen1 sentence2016App. 2000). 14 See Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243, 254, 256 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Westmoreland v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Riney v. State, 28 S.W.3d 561, 565 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Westmoreland v. State, 174 S.W.3d 282, 286 (TexApp.-Tyler 2005, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cook v. State
green
2 sentences2000An indictment is essential to vest the trial court with jurisdiction, Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d at 475 , and an indictment provides a defendant notice of the offense charged so that he may prepare, in advance of trial, an informed and effective defense. 2000An indictment is essential to vest the trial court with jurisdiction, Cook v. State, 902 S.W.2d at 475 , and an indictment provides a defendant notice of the offense charged so that he may prepare, in advance of trial, an informed and effective defense. | 1 | 2000–2000 |