firm motion in Texas

2020Compare Craig, 497 U.S. at 844, 850 (stating that the Supreme Court has “never held . . . that the Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial,” and permitting one-way video testimony where “necessary to further an important 2 Marc C.

2008See Cire v. Cummings , 134 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Tex. 2004).

2008A. Standard of review and applicable law “As a rule, when cases involving the same subject matter are brought in different courts, the court with the first-filed case has dominant jurisdiction and should proceed, and the other cases should abate.” Perry v. Del Rio , 66 S.W.3d 239, 252 (Tex. 2001). “[I]n a race to the courthouse, the winner’s suit should have dominant jurisdiction,” subject to exceptions when its justifications fail.

2006See Jones, 745 S.W.2d at 900 .

1983However, in Castillo , at 554, and the cases cited therein, we have clearly stated that the issue of indigency “implicates the personal financial condition of an appellant, not that of his parents or other relatives.” The court of appeals erred in imposing its own “fixed standard.” 2 Proeedurally, the court observed that the trial judge had conducted a hearing on the “truthfulness” of appellant’s in-digency affidavit, pursuant to Article 40.-09(5), V.A.C.C.P., and that the trial court had denied appellant indigency status.

1983If they have money, this does not mean that a defendant is not indigent.” In the present case the court of appeals noted “the absence of a firm standard from either the statute or prior cases” but expressed confidence that its own test was consistent with this Court’s opinion in Castillo v. State, 595 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).