Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). · cites it 4דTEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 49.045. Because this statute clearly dispenses with a culpable mental state, the court held that the felony murder charge also did not require a culpable mental state and upheld the trial court's decision not to quash the indictments.”
Houston v. State, 201 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App. 2006). · cites it 4דThe indictment also alleged appellant had been previously convicted of (1) felony attempted possession of a controlled substance and (2) felony possession of a controlled substance. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the primary offense, and a plea of true to the enhancement…”
Kimberly Gonzalez v. State, 516 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 4דSee Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.045 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.”
Pointe v. State, 371 S.W.3d 527 (Tex. App. 2012). · cites it 3דA person is intoxicated when he does not have the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into the body. Id. § 49.01(2)(A) (West 2011). A deadly weapon includes anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of…”
State v. Guzman, 182 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2005). “Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 49.045 (West Supp.2005).”
Case Cooper Nelson v. State, 504 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. App. 2016). “Tex Penal Code § 49.045 (West 2011). The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for six months and a fine in the amount of $1,500.”
Bell v. State, 485 S.W.3d 663 (Tex. App. 2016). “Tex Penal Code Ann. § 49.045 (West 2011).”
Gonzalez, Kimberly (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 4ד5 iii Tex. Penal Code § 49.045. ...............”
Lauren Olsen v. State, 606 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App. 2020). · cites it 3דShe argues that the jury should have been instructed that if it resolved these disputed fact issues in her favor, it was then required to disregard the laboratory results of her post-arrest blood draw because this evidence was illegally obtained.”
Tara Carson Lane v. State (Tex. App. 2015). · cites it 4דSpecifically, Lane asserts that the trial court erred by: (1) admitting the results of her blood test; (2) denying her request for a jury charge under article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, see TEX.”
Lauren Olsen v. State, 606 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App. 2020). “She argues that the jury should have been instructed that if it resolved these disputed fact issues in her favor, it was then required to disregard the laboratory results of her post-arrest blood draw because this evidence was illegally obtained.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.