Charlie Baird

In Dixon v. State, the defendant was convicted of incest, indecency with a child, and aggravated sexual assault. The key dispute concerned the State's cross-examination of a defense witness who faced pending felony charges in the same court; the trial court permitted questions about those charges to show bias or motive after overruling defense objections. The Court of Criminal Appeals examined whether the defendant's general objection preserved a claim under Texas Rule of Criminal Evidence 608(b) versus the separate bias-impeachment provisions of Rule 612(b), and whether the Court of Appeals had correctly applied preservation doctrines on remand. The court clarified that an objection is preserved when the trial judge explicitly references prior rulings on the same issue and that evidence admissible to prove bias need not satisfy the conviction-based requirements of Rule 608(b).

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the applicant sought to withdraw his guilty plea in a criminal proceeding, but the trial court denied the request and the court of appeals rejected his appeal based on an affidavit indicating no permission to appeal had been granted. After multiple district judges refused to consider his habeas corpus application, the applicant asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to exercise its original jurisdiction over the habeas petition. The court denied leave to file the habeas application without a written order. In a concurring opinion, Judge Baird agreed with the denial, reasoning that an adequate remedy at law existed through a writ of mandamus under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.08, particularly where district judges had failed to act on repeated filings, making habeas relief inappropriate when mandamus could address the inaction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of attempted murder after a shooting, where the jury charge included an abstract definition of self-defense but did not apply that law to the facts of the case or instruct that reasonable doubt on self-defense required acquittal. The defendant had not requested or objected to the self-defense instructions. The court of appeals reversed the conviction, finding the charge error to be of federal constitutional magnitude and harmful under federal standards. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the omission was error under state law because the trial court had included self-defense in the charge, but it was not federal constitutional error, so harm must be assessed under the Almanza standard rather than federal harmless error rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellants Kent Weightman and Matthew McGowan, who were convicted of theft of trade secrets (along with related commercial bribery counts) for obtaining and using machinery drawings belonging to Elliott Turbomachine Company and Dresser-Rand Corporation without authorization. The Court of Appeals had mixed results on the counts, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to assess the sufficiency of the evidence for the theft convictions under Texas Penal Code § 31.05. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the drawings qualified as trade secrets because they contained valuable technical designs and the owners had implemented measures to restrict access. It applied a plain-language reading of the statute's three-pronged definition, rejecting arguments that the information was not secret or that insufficient protective steps had been taken by the companies.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.071 filed by a death row inmate alleging constitutional violations in his conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the application with a written order. The majority reasoned that the application was untimely under the statute's 90-day filing deadline from the date the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, and that an agreed order from the trial court extending the deadline did not authorize late filing. Dissenting opinions argued that the court should exercise its original jurisdiction to consider the merits rather than dismiss based on counsel's delay.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a post-conviction habeas corpus application under Article 11.07 challenging a cumulation order in a burglary of a building conviction with a ten-year sentence, where the order referenced only the county of a prior conviction from a different county. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief, holding that a cumulation order is not void merely for lacking full details such as cause number, court name, date, and sentence term if it allows the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to properly identify and cumulate the sentences. The court reasoned that the applicant must demonstrate harm from any lack of specificity and that the agency was not cumulating sentences correctly, overruling prior precedents like Ex parte Ashe that had required more specific information in such orders.

criminal lawprocedure