State committed reversible error in Texas

2010He contends in six points of error that (1) the State committed reversible error by commenting on his post-Miranda1 silence, in violation of his right under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that prohibits the State from commenting on his right to remain silent during his trial; (2) the State violated Brady v. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

1979Appellant contends that a charge on involuntary manslaughter should have been given; the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence a statement made by appellant prior to his being advised of his constitutional rights as mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1960); evidence of appellant’s reputation for truth and veracity was improperly excluded; the trial court erroneously instructed the jury concerning testimony by the spouse of a defendant in a criminal case; and the State committed reversible error by subpoenaing appellant’s wife as a witness, hav

1999In point of error number six, Mason contends the State committed reversible error in using peremptory strikes to exclude African-Americans from the venire panel solely on the basis of their race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

1987In his third point of error, the appellant contends that the State committed reversible error in using peremptory strikes for the purpose of excluding blacks from the venire panel solely on the basis of their race, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

2010After receiving a Miranda warning, Rascon agreed to talk to Sergeant Anthony Roland Bennett 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 of the Texas Department of Public Safety Narcotics Service.

2006Id. at 892 .

1999Review of the record reveals that Mason did not object to the State's peremptory strikes after they were exercised or to the racial composition of the jury panel before it was sworn. " Batson error is subject to principles of ordinary procedural default." Batisse v. State , 888 S.W.2d 9 , 17 n. 5 (Tex. Crim.

1982In Sisson v. State, 561 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), the court held that the State committed reversible error in introducing an evidence envelope with the following writing on the envelope: NARCOTICS SECTION INVESTIGATION NO.

1974Appellant was indicted prior to, but tried shortly after, the United States Supreme Court decision holding the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 .

1974Appellant was indicted prior to, but tried shortly after, the United States Supreme Court decision holding the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 .

1971He first contends that the counsel for the State committed reversible error when, in the course of his argument, he said, “Even his own attorney doesn’t believe his story.” He candidly admits that the Court sustained his trial attorney’s objection, that trial counsel asked for no further relief, and that if this Court adheres to its holding in Van Skike v. State, 388 S.W.2d 716 (1965), he has no reversible error.