- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Orn v. State
753 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)2 Citing cases
Gonzales v. State
818 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) Cited 79 timesHolding trial court did not deny appellant his constitutional rights by allowing child witness to testify by two-way closed-circuit system
Abdnor, 808 S.W.2d at 480. See and contrast Orn v. State, 753 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (Onion, P.J., dissenting and referring to the policy as launching cases into "heavenly appellate orbit"). We utilized the policy by remanding hundreds of cases to the courts of appeals to conduct a harmless error analysis in light of our decision in Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988).
Abdnor v. State
808 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) Cited 25 times 2 Legal AnalysesIn Almanza, we observed that if the error was subject to a timely objection at trial, "then reversal is required if the error is 'calculated to injure the rights of the defendant' which means that there must be no more than that there must be some harm to the accused from the error."
On numerous occasions, former Presiding Judge Onion chastised the majority for failing to address issues before this Court even though not addressed by the lower court, and for remanding cases to the Courts of Appeals to perform some function this Court was capable of performing. See Orn v. State, 753 S.W.2d 394 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (Onion, P.J., dissenting: "I vigorously dissent to the failure of the majority to dispose of this cause now" ). It was in such a dissent that Judge Onion coined the now popular phrase of "appellate orbit":